What counts as a historical Jesus?

[JabbaPapa]

You know, for someone who says:

which part of my use of the past tense did you fail to understand ?

 

[Akri]

Literary texts are defined by their durability, not their mutability.

Cladistics is intrinsically foreign to the most basic textual reality.

A single copy of a text is durable, in that the words won't spontaneously change on the page (well, unless you're in a certain Brandon Sanderson novel). However while the words won't spontaneously change on that copy, they can change from one copy to the next. Tracking those changes and grouping them together (figuring out which versions of a quote are closer to the original and which are more heavily modified, for instance) is cladistics.

 

[The Norseman]

Let these OTHER POSTERS show the way, rather than insisting on a conflictual attitude.

except oh no, wait -- I'll be pushing off anyway.

Tell these OTHER POSTERS that they can sleep easy.

Please post your evidence and your reasoning that supports it and it's a safe bet that everyone else will turn to what you present.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Yes, we already covered that. I wasn't asking for your feelings on the matter, but for a demonstration of why what you're doing does not adhere to the definintion of cladistics.

... which is just an implicit attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Given that I reject the entirety of memetic theory, on the basis that the physical existence of memes is impossible to demonstrate, I fail to see why I should engage in any ludicrous discussion of their alleged properties.

 

[John Jones]

wooooh, getting some insight into my more recent reactions ???

Well, you are the newbie here. It's always good advice to lurk, read, and get the facts and lay of the land before antagonizing the other members. This was pointed-out to you on that other thread where you likewise didn't make a spectacular entrance.

 

[John Jones]

... which is just an implicit attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Given that I reject the entirety of memetic theory, on the basis that the physical existence of memes is impossible to demonstrate, I fail to see why I should engage in any ludicrous discussion of their alleged properties.

Then don't.

 

[Belz...]

wooooh, getting some insight into my more recent reactions ???

Irrelevant. Keep cool and things will cool down.

Of course, that's dependant on your actually remaining honest in the discussion and accepting evidence when it is presented.

Back to the topic, shall we ?

 

[JabbaPapa]

A single copy of a text is durable, in that the words won't spontaneously change on the page (well, unless you're in a certain Brandon Sanderson novel). However while the words won't spontaneously change on that copy, they can change from one copy to the next. Tracking those changes and grouping them together (figuring out which versions of a quote are closer to the original and which are more heavily modified, for instance) is cladistics.

No, because such changes cannot be demonstrated to obey the theoretical principles of evolutionary biology.

Such textual changes are either accidental or deliberate.

Deliberate textual change is unpredictable by cladistics.

It's just bad 19th century theory.

 

[JabbaPapa]

"Literary analysis" of the type JabbaPapa is doing is notoriously unscientific. You can literally prove anything about anything using these methods. This is no joke--literature professors do it for a joke all the time (they're not the most hillarious group; then again, my field puns in Latin, so what can I say? ). I've seen essays "proving" that Tolkien was both pro- and anti-femanism using these methods. The problem is, there are no constraints--you can interpret the text in any way you want (how many Protestant religions are there?), and you can generally find some facts to support any position.

This paragraph contains nothing other than caricature and false assumptions.

Those disagreeing with Dinwar are not magically provided with clichéd negative characteristics of Dinwar's invention.

Ironically, Dinwar simply describes the underlying nature of his own posting style (as a negative).

Whatever.

 

[Akri]

... which is just an implicit attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No, it's an attempt to understand your position. Are you not interested in a discussion?

Given that I reject the entirety of memetic theory, on the basis that the physical existence of memes is impossible to demonstrate, I fail to see why I should engage in any ludicrous discussion of their alleged properties.

Are you confusing cladistics and meme theory?

No, because such changes cannot be demonstrated to obey the theoretical principles of evolutionary biology.

They don't need to in order for cladistics to apply. Do you think cladistics only works for evolutionary theory?

Deliberate textual change is unpredictable by cladistics.

We're not talking about predicting future changes, but classifying past ones.

I'll ask again: what do you think "cladistics" is?

 

[The Norseman]

No, it's an attempt to understand your position. Are you not interested in a discussion?


Are you confusing cladistics and meme theory?


They don't need to in order for cladistics to apply. Do you think cladistics only works for evolutionary theory?


We're not talking about predicting future changes, but classifying past ones.

I'll ask again: what do you think "cladistics" is?

To be fair, I don't think that this conversation should tack away from the issue here which is not cladistics per se. Besides which, JabbaPappa has yet to actually spell out which books and which copies and so on that he's comparing to come to his results. Actually, I don't even recall whether or not he's put forth any results yet.

 

[Akri]

To be fair, I don't think that this conversation should tack away from the issue here which is not cladistics per se. Besides which, JabbaPappa has yet to actually spell out which books and which copies and so on that he's comparing to come to his results. Actually, I don't even recall whether or not he's put forth any results yet.

Good point. I do tend to get tunnel vision about this sort of thing

 

[The Norseman]

Good point. I do tend to get tunnel vision about this sort of thing

I think we all tend to do so; it's called "thread drift" for a reason!

But still, if he has any new evidence to present, hopefully it'll be relatively soon.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Are you confusing cladistics and meme theory?

I do understand that cladistics and meme theory are non-identical, but both theories are based on a biological causality that is foreign IMO to the realities of textual shift.

A desire to accept such insults as are being provided for me is not magically provided by your intervention.

They don't need to in order for cladistics to apply. Do you think cladistics only works for evolutionary theory?

Do you thin that it works elsewhere ?

Not my claim, not my burden of proof.

Demonstrate that cladistics are objectively descriptive of textual shift, or stop expecting people to believe in it.

Come on -- can't be harder than tackling the question of God, eh ?

We're not talking about predicting future changes, but classifying past ones.

I'm not talking about the qualities of cladistics, I'm talking about its inherent flaws as a theory of literature.

Viz. literature does not exist in the past, for starters, but only in the contact hic et nunc between the text and the reader and the author.

Cladistics assumes a sort of continuity that could exist only in the mind ; NOT in the literature itself.

I disagree with the theory of genre that it suggests.

And textual evolution is either entropic or deliberate.

 

[The Norseman]

How does your knowledge apply to the historicity of Yeshua? What evidence do you have and what is your reasoning for it?

 

[Akri]

Do you thin that it works elsewhere ?

Yes.

Viz. literature does not exist in the past, for starters, but only in the contact hic et nunc between the text and the reader and the author.

.....what?

I disagree with the theory of genre that it suggests.

That's something else I've been meaning to ask: how are you defining the term "genre"? I've never seen it used the way you're using it.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Yes.

It's like swimming through tar.

I do not need to consult Wikipedia in order to be informed of what several posts in this thread have posited -- furthermore, Wikipedia does not magically provide me with agreement to their proposals.

I can accept that you think that it works outside of biology, but I've seen too often in experience of textual comparisons that this kind of method has a fairly limited scope of application, and particularly in such texts that are unusually stable from the formal point of view.

Which is certainly not useless, but it appears to be of extremely dubious nature concerning Scripture.

 

[Akri]

I do not need to consult Wikipedia in order to be informed of what several posts in this thread have posited -- furthermore, Wikipedia does not magically provide me with agreement to their proposals.

I didn't expect it to. But you didn't seem willing to offer any evidence for your claim until I'd offered evidence of mine. In other words, I've shown you mine so now you show me yours.

 

[John Jones]

You falsely assume an unfamiliarity with my topics of interest.

My issue in these forums has not been based on lack of familiarity, but on false assumptions stubbornly foisted on me, and false understandings leading nowhere.

Various members' gross double standards are unhelpful.

Then it should be easy to disabuse me and others of these false assumptions.

Evidence of a historical Jesus would do nicely.

 

[Belz...]

What is the point of producing evidence that is rejected a priori, and in fact described as "not-evidence" ???

Right. So now you've stooped to the "I won't present evidence because you wouldn't accept it" strategy. Very convincing.