What counts as a historical Jesus?

[JabbaPapa]

Considering you're essentially doing cladistics

My, what a lively imagination you have !!!

So -- in your opinion, my overt and direct rejection of the application of evolutionary theory to literary analysis is instead (how ? by magic ?) some kind of implicit acceptance of its intrinsic validity, or some other crap like that ?

NOPE.

I think that the theory is absolute rubbish.

I'd say that field is pretty bloody relevant!

Your personal opinions do not constitute the basis of factuality.

And that's just one way. The fact that you can't explain these methods worth spit is another way they're relevant--you don't know the underlying principles, and therefore are talking nonsense.

Cripes, I don't even know where to *begin* dismantling the atrocious pseudo-logic of this particular comment.

How is my refusal to engage in discussion of the suggested validity of a method of epistemology that I strongly believe to be inherently worthless for the study of Ancient Literature ANY kind of justification of the "relevance" of these dubious theories ?

I do not accept your propositions.

in very much the same way, as I understand it, to a biologist looking at the genetic code of extant animals

You have no idea what you're talking about -- you are interpreting an analogy literally.

The analogy only has value from an a posteriori point of view -- the sort of software-based analysis you're talking about can provide analyses that can be integrated into a theory of provenance.

It completely fails in the other direction.

Whereas evolutionary theory has the ability to make some predictions concerning future evolutions, no such predictability is possible when a text should be deliberately modified by a later author or editor on the basis of whim.

even if we accept the historically illiterate notion of the Bible being a single book (which is centraly to JabbaPapa's methods)

Pole-dancing, evidence-free RUBBISH.

Though your propensity to project your negative fantasies upon those that you disagree with is psychopathologically fascinating ...

 

[JabbaPapa]

Do you want to hear my hypothesis about you ?

Based on your behaviour in the two threads I've seen you interact in, it's my opinion that you signed on to the JREF forum only to show those damn dirty skeptics what you know. Your reason to be here is to be adversarial, so it stands to reason that evidence isn't foremost on your mind, something at odds with a skeptics forum.

Nice fantasy.

No, in fact I was hoping that discussions would be possible that would be devoid of the kind of tedious blinkered preconceptions as you have just now evidenced.

Invent whichever "reasons" why I signed up that might fit your convenience -- but don't expect me to take your ludicrous, fact-free amateur psycho-whatsit seriously.

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

 

[Akri]

So -- in your opinion, my overt and direct rejection of the application of evolutionary theory to literary analysis is instead (how ? by magic ?) some kind of implicit acceptance of its intrinsic validity, or some other crap like that ?

You don't need to accept that you're doing cladistics to be doing cladistics.

So why do you think what you're doing doesn't qualify?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Do you know what these words mean ? The quote from Dinwar's post is actually grammatically correct and is easy to understand. If you mean "I disagree", why didn't you write that ?

Given your inability to understand the ad hominem trope, I feel hesitant to explain the nature of hyperbole to you ...

 

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Dinwar
And that's just one way. The fact that you can't explain these methods worth spit is another way they're relevant--you don't know the underlying principles, and therefore are talking nonsense.

Originally Posted by JabbaPapa
Cripes, I don't even know where to *begin* dismantling the atrocious pseudo-logic of this particular comment.

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

PS You forgot to say irrational that time.

 

[Akri]

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

Then why are you sticking around?

 

[John Jones]

Nice fantasy.

No, in fact I was hoping that discussions would be possible that would be devoid of the kind of tedious blinkered preconceptions as you have just now evidenced.

Invent whichever "reasons" why I signed up that might fit your convenience -- but don't expect me to take your ludicrous, fact-free amateur psycho-whatsit seriously.

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

Just for fun, I'll offer the conjecture that you're a student in a Bible College that offers course credits for picking fights on the internet.

 

[The Norseman]

Nice fantasy.

No, in fact I was hoping that discussions would be possible that would be devoid of the kind of tedious blinkered preconceptions as you have just now evidenced.

Invent whichever "reasons" why I signed up that might fit your convenience -- but don't expect me to take your ludicrous, fact-free amateur psycho-whatsit seriously.

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

How about focusing on the TOPIC of the thread and not OTHER POSTERS.

That would help considerably in having an actual conversation.

Please post some evidence that you have of an historical Yeshua. If you include the Christian bible, then make commentary on why you think it supports an historical Yeshua.

 

[Dinwar]

You don't need to accept that you're doing cladistics to be doing cladistics.

Cladistics, at its heart, is nothing more than a way to figure out how get the diversity one sees with the minimum number of changes. ANY study, of ANY system, that changes through time can be fit to that data. As I said, it IS used in language studies. The concepts (if not the math) are equally applicable to books. In fact, I'm not sure how else one could hope to do what JabbaPapa is proposing--at least, not in any sort of systematic way.

The way it works is, the equations look for traits shared among some of the things being studied, and not others. Those traits allow the math to group things together. Those groups, in turn, can be grouped--and each grouping has a node, a hypothetical earlier form. Those nodes have hypothetical traits as well, which is how we can figure out what ancestrial forms were like without having them to examine. This works perfectly fine in linguistics, tool making, etc.; I see, and no one has yet presented, any barrier to the utility of these methods in terms of books--except, of course, the fact that these methods assume traits don't move horizontally, as it were, which causes the method to fall apart back in the "oral tradition" phase.

"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. Actually applying the math narrows one's focus and allows one to actually answer the question "What would the originals have looked like?" in a systematic and testable manner.

Originally Posted by Dinwar
Cripes, I don't even know where to *begin* dismantling the atrocious pseudo-logic of this particular comment.

I think you attributed this to the wrong person.

To be clear, here's what I mean: JabbaPapa admitted that he didn't know the methods. So we can accept that as a given. Then he went on to attempt to explain the methods anyway--always dangerous. He did such a bad job of it that he actually damaged someone's understanding of what these methods are and what they can do. If he COULD explain the methods, it'd mean he understood them--and the only way to be that bad at explaining something is to think you know more about it than you do. Simple ignorance isn't enough.

There's a truism in science: You don't know something unless you can explain it. That's because in order to explain something you have to be able to understand, not just regurgitate, the general principles. JabbaPapa is demonstrating what happens when one learns concepts by wrote.

(I should emphasize, I'm not interested in JabbaPapa's response or posts; I'm merely explaining an epistemological concept.)

 

[JabbaPapa]

So why do you think what you're doing doesn't qualify?

Because I reject bad 19th century methodology.

Textual evolution from edition to edition provides two separate avenues of change :

Authorial modifications, which tend to be extremely drastic and completely unpredictable

Editorial modifications, which either involve some linguistic and orthographic predictability that is vaguely similar to the biological analogy mentioned ; or more often just some complete a priori removals of some contents from the text, which resembles evolutionary biology not at all

Such theories mostly seek to abnegate the value of the human mind, by subjecting it to some bizarre submissions of itself.

 

[Belz...]

My, what a lively imagination you have !!!

NOPE.

I think that the theory is absolute rubbish.

Your personal opinions do not constitute the basis of factuality.

Cripes, I don't even know where to *begin* dismantling the atrocious pseudo-logic of this particular comment.

I do not accept your propositions.

You have no idea what you're talking about -- you are interpreting an analogy literally.

Pole-dancing, evidence-free RUBBISH.

Though your propensity to project your negative fantasies upon those that you disagree with is psychopathologically fascinating ...

Nice fantasy.

You know, for someone who says:

I was hoping that discussions would be possible

...you sure are taking steps to avoid actually discussing.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Then why are you sticking around?

I'm not -- that doesn't mean I'm not looking for at least some sense of closure, nor does it mean that I might be desirous of accepting various slanderous and objectively ignorant comments that have been made against my person.

 

[Belz...]

Given your inability to understand the ad hominem trope

Projection. First of all, it's not a "trope". It's a fallacy. Second, YOU have demonstrated that you don't know what it is. Give it up. Try to learn rather than teach.

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

Then why the hell are you here ? Oh, I forgot. Adversarial.

I feel hesitant to explain the nature of hyperbole to you ...

Hyperbole ? Hyperbole would be saying that the post is so inaccurate that babies cry when they read it. Saying it's nonsensical gibberish has an actual meaning, JabbaPapa. Cripes, would you mind getting over yourself ?

 

[Dinwar]

It's funny how, according to JP, the application of equations to multiple questions is nothing more than an analogy.

I guess 2+2=4 only works for one case; all other situations are mere analogies, therefore we don't know that two of them, plus two more, equals four of them!

I guess Darcy's Law only works for one type fo stream. It's only analogous to other types--no need to do fancy equations, engineers, they won't matter anyway!

 

[Belz...]

I'm not -- that doesn't mean I'm not looking for at least some sense of closure, nor does it mean that I might be desirous of accepting various slanderous and objectively ignorant comments that have been made against my person.

Beam in your eye, JP. Act civilly and people will return the favour. Act like a jerk and people will, you know, return the favour.

Now, do you have anything worthwhile to add to this topic ?

 

[Akri]

Because I reject bad 19th century methodology.

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.

Perhaps a better question would be "what do you think cladistics is"?

Textual evolution from edition to edition provides two separate avenues of change :

Authorial modifications, which tend to be extremely drastic and completely unpredictable

Editorial modifications, which either involve some linguistic and orthographic predictability that is vaguely similar to the biological analogy mentioned ; or more often just some complete a priori removals of some contents from the text, which resembles evolutionary biology not at all.

Such theories mostly seek to abnegate the value of the human mind, by subjecting it to some bizarre submissions of itself.

Yep, "what do you think cladistics is?" is definitely the question we need to start with. Because, seriously,wtf?

 

[John Jones]

I think you attributed this to the wrong person.

I did. I corrected it right away. Sorry. I'm not good at replying to nested quotes.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Cladistics, at its heart, is nothing more than a way to figure out how get the diversity one sees with the minimum number of changes.

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

Cladistics is intrinsically foreign to the most basic textual reality.

 

[John Jones]

Projection. First of all, it's not a "trope". It's a fallacy. Second, YOU have demonstrated that you don't know what it is. Give it up. Try to learn rather than teach.



Then why the hell are you here ? Oh, I forgot. Adversarial.



Hyperbole ? Hyperbole would be saying that the post is so inaccurate that babies cry when they read it. Saying it's nonsensical gibberish has an actual meaning, JabbaPapa. Cripes, would you mind getting over yourself ?

That's a pretty good definition and rejoinder.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Act like a jerk and people will, you know, return the favour.

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