FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-19-2001, 08:43 AM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Polycarp:
Diana’s mistake #1 – The Talmud acknowledges the fact that Jesus performed feats which defied “natural explanation”, and the Talmud certainly was not written by “believers”.

LP:
And what is that "acknowledgment"? There were lots of supposed miracle workers in those days. I wonder if Polycarp believes that Apollonius of Tyana and the Roman Emperor Vespasian had performed the miracles that they had been described as performing.

Polycarp:
Diana’s mistake #2 – There is a reference to a person who claims to have directly witnessed the actions of Jesus. John 21:24 says, “This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” This is said in the context of summarizing all of the information in the gospel of John and identify the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the gospel. It is a claim to eyewitness testimony.

LP:
In a document that grossly contradicts the other three canonical Gospels; it says that Jesus Christ had spent much more time in Jerusalem than the other three, and that he had talked much more about murky theology.

Polycarp:
Diana’s mistake #3 – Nobody is trying to make any money off of you.

LP:
What do you call TV evangelists?

Polycarp:
Diana’s mistake #4 – There was a story in the news in my area last week about a woman who had been kidnapped. The story I saw on a TV station conflicted with the story I read the next day in the newspaper. Their timeframes were slightly different, they listed different occupations for the woman, etc. Should I now believe that the woman did not exist, or that she was not kidnapped? I would hope not…

LP:
However, if there were really fundamental contradictions, you would have to wonder.

Polycarp:
Diana’s mistake #5 – I’m sure you’re aware that William Wallace (of Braveheart fame) meets most of the criteria for myth stories. Historians don’t doubt his existence. The stories of Roman emperors were told in similar fashion. Are you saying you don’t believe Roman emperors existed?

LP:
And how is that supposed to be the case? Was William Wallace the son of a god and a virgin?

Polycarp:
This is because you are well-versed in critical thinking skills while Christians are totally lacking in the area and dependent entirely on blind faith. I am a Christian. The reason I started this thread is so that I can learn how to become a better critical thinker. If you’ll address the items above that I believe to be mistakes on your part, then perhaps I will have taken a small step towards honing my skills as a critical thinker.

LP:
Thank you for admitting all that.
 
Old 04-19-2001, 09:10 AM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> In the Jesus case it is notable that the oldest stratum of evidence, Q, contains no miracle stories and no Resurrection. </font>
Q is not the oldest stratum of evidence. Paul's epistles are. Regardless, we have no way of knowing that Q is any older than Mark's sources or L for that matter.

Q does contain miracle stories and additional references to many of Jesus' miracles.

Specifically:

Q tells that John the Baptist ministers and attests to the promise of one to come.

Then, Jesus is tested by Satan in the wilderness.

Then, Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount.

Then we get to--oh my gosh--a miracle story. And one involving a gentile at that. The Healing of the Centurion's Servant. Luke 7:1-2, 6-10; Matth. 8:51, 10, 13. Jesus heals the valued servant of a Centurion with great faith.

Discipleship/Mission. Matth. 11:2-11. Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and tell John the things which you hear and se. The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them." Let's quickly review: Jesus has healed the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf. Oh yeah, and he raised the dead.

Exorcisms. Matth: 12:22. "Then one who was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute, and he healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw." Whoops! Another miracle. An exorcism and the restoration of sight and speech!

So. It appears Q explicitly describes TWO miracles and refers to Jesus' healing of the the blind, the lame, the lepers, and the deaf, as well as the raising of the dead.

And Mike, what evidence do you have that Q independently existed in a community ignorant of the Passion Narrative and/or the Resurrection? None. But I can give you examples of at least two communities, the only communities we know of that were aware of Q, who were familiar both with Q and with the Passion Narrative: Matthew's and Luke's.

Moreover, Q itself indicates that it presupposes a Passion Narrative. Q presumes familiarity with the Passion Narrative. Werner G. Kummel, Introduction to the New
Testament, at 74. We have Jesus' command to his disciples, "Take up your cross and follow me." Luke 14:27. He have Jesus' say, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to to gather your chidren together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." Luke 13:34-35. He also have the parable of the mustard seed which speaks of being put into ground so that the tree (the kingdom of God) could grow from it. Luke 13:18-21.

When the above statements are conjoined with the Son of Man sayings (about the Son of Man returning in power), Q presumes an eschatological figure who will be persecuted and rejected, but then return in power. In
other words, it presumes the Passion Narrative.

Accordingly, "[t]he view that Q reflects an early form of the Jesus movement that did not care about the cross and resurrection is not sustainable. The eschatology of Q presumes Jesus' death and resurrection." R. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside of the New Testament, at 174.
 
Old 04-19-2001, 09:32 AM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> As someone else pointed out there is a big difference between the two in the way they affect people’s lives. Most people, when told that King Arthur didn’t exist, would not care very much. Tell people that JC did not exist, and you get a much different reaction. If JC did not exist, the entire basis for their religion goes out the window. </font>
Thank you for additional examples of Number 8! And is there a Number 4 in there as well?

Thanks again!

 
Old 04-19-2001, 10:34 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:

Accordingly, "[t]he view that Q reflects an early form of the Jesus movement that did not care about the cross and resurrection is not sustainable. The eschatology of Q presumes Jesus' death and resurrection." R. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside of the New Testament, at 174.
</font>
Which Q? Q1, Q2, etc? The earliest stratum, Q1, contains no miracle stories, AFAIK. They are added in Q2 and later, according to Mack.

In any case, healings and raising the dead are commonplace miracles, carnival acts performed by many. The real biggies, the water walk and feeding the masses...those were ones I was thinking of. And they are not in Q.

Michael
 
Old 04-19-2001, 10:43 AM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
Which Q? Q1, Q2, etc? The earliest stratum, Q1, contains no miracle stories, AFAIK. They are added in Q2 and later, according to Mack.

In any case, healings and raising the dead are commonplace miracles, carnival acts performed by many. The real biggies, the water walk and feeding the masses...those were ones I was thinking of. And they are not in Q.

Michael
</font>
Oh really? What is your evidence that there were various strata of Q? What is your evidence that it developed in the order you claim? Do you have any textual evidence for this? Probably not since we don't have any textual evidence for Q itself. All you have is an assumption that the development of Q happens to follow your pet theory. So, of course, it MUST have developed in that way, eh?

Oh, and while you are at it please provide the evidence that Q existed in a community ignorant of the Passion Narrative? Especially since all we seem to have are examples of communities being aware of BOTH Q and the Passion Narratives.

Oh, and the references to the cross and persecution and suffering of the Son of Man?
 
Old 04-19-2001, 11:04 AM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hold on a minute here. You, and Van Voorst, are making a completely unsupported assertion. First you say:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:

Moreover, Q itself indicates that it presupposes a Passion Narrative. Q presumes familiarity with the Passion Narrative. Werner G. Kummel, Introduction to the New
Testament, at 74. We have Jesus' command to his disciples, "Take up your cross and follow me." Luke 14:27. He have Jesus' say, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to to gather your chidren together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." Luke 13:34-35. He also have the parable of the mustard seed which speaks of being put into ground so that the tree (the kingdom of God) could grow from it. Luke 13:18-21.

When the above statements are conjoined with the Son of Man sayings (about the Son of Man returning in power), Q presumes an eschatological figure who will be persecuted and rejected, but then return in power. In
other words, it presumes the Passion Narrative.
</font>
Fine. Q has the story of Jesus crucifixion. OK, so he was crucified. Is it surprising that the earliest followers have this story? No. Neither does it pin it at any point in history though.

But THEN you make a leap of logic that I don't follow:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Accordingly, "[t]he view that Q reflects an early form of the Jesus movement that did not care about the cross and resurrection is not sustainable. The eschatology of Q presumes Jesus' death and resurrection." R. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside of the New Testament, at 174. </font>
Your quotes don't support Van Voorst's statement about a resurrection that the writer of Q witnessed in the PAST. The Q quote simply attest to the fact that the Q writers expected Jesus to return in the near future, 'in power'. That's all. No story of a resurrection in Q, just a hoped-for future event.

Regards,

Kelly

 
Old 04-19-2001, 11:20 AM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Oh really? What is your evidence that there were various strata of Q? What is your evidence that it developed in the order you claim? Do you have any textual evidence for this? Probably not since we don't have any textual evidence for Q itself. All you have is an assumption that the development of Q happens to follow your pet theory. So, of course, it MUST have developed in that way, eh?

Oh, and while you are at it please provide the evidence that Q existed in a community ignorant of the Passion Narrative? Especially since all we seem to have are examples of communities being aware of BOTH Q and the Passion Narratives.

Oh, and the references to the cross and persecution and suffering of the Son of Man?
</font>
Will you back off? It's not my theory. It's the theory of a number of scholars that there are different layers or strata of Q, as you well know. I opened up Mack because I own it and didn't feel like wasting time hunting it up on the web. Mack says the centurion is an addition into Q2. Ergo, Q1 doesn't have it. If I have misread Mack, I am sure you will tell me, or trundle out your own scholars.

That makes the two earliest sources, Paul and Q, unaware of the big miracles in Mark. As you say, we have an eschatology, some kind of excution/cruicifixion, and maybe a Passion story. So? It is irrelevant how early or in what sources they occur. They remain fictions, Layman. It's interesting to poke around in this mythology, of yours, but as far as yielding truth, it is a pointless exercise. Such legends could have been grafted onto Jesus within hours or days of his death. Or actualized themselves in the legend of a real person who did these things. Either is possible.

The basic problem, as I have said time and again, is that apologists, with their dessicated, impoverished view of history, believe that time is really important in the development of these ideas. As I have demonstrated with numerous historical examples, some myths blow up quickly, others take years. Clearly, in the case of Christianity, we have one that developed rapidly and spread rapidly. It's happened before; it will happen again.

That's why it is of so little consequence when things happen. When did a Passion narrative arise? It doesn't matter if it was in 35 or 40 or 80 AD, in any case, there is more than enough time, as historical examples demonstrate. Apologists make these arguments about "early this" or "early that," hoping that their audience will share with them the implicit understanding that if it happened early, it can't be a process of mythmaking. But it can. And was.

I think it was kind of sad that you went to Malaysia to preach, Layman, it looks like the trip was wasted on you. It gave you no understanding of other cultures, it seems not to have spurred any interest in the world outside of Palestine in the 1st century, and doesn't give you any basis by which you might compare and calibrate your thinking about human behavior.

Michael
 
Old 04-19-2001, 11:25 AM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
Will you back off? It's not my theory. It's the theory of a number of scholars that there are different layers or strata of Q, as you well know. I opened up Mack because I own it and didn't feel like wasting time hunting it up on the web. Mack says the centurion is an addition into Q2. Ergo, Q1 doesn't have it. If I have misread Mack, I am sure you will tell me, or trundle out your own scholars.

That makes the two earliest sources, Paul and Q, unaware of the big miracles in Mark. As you say, we have an eschatology, some kind of excution/cruicifixion, and maybe a Passion story. So? It is irrelevant how early or in what sources they occur. They remain fictions, Layman. It's interesting to poke around in this mythology, of yours, but as far as yielding truth, it is a pointless exercise. Such legends could have been grafted onto Jesus within hours or days of his death. Or actualized themselves in the legend of a real person who did these things. Either is possible.

The basic problem, as I have said time and again, is that apologists, with their dessicated, impoverished view of history, believe that time is really important in the development of these ideas. As I have demonstrated with numerous historical examples, some myths blow up quickly, others take years. Clearly, in the case of Christianity, we have one that developed rapidly and spread rapidly. It's happened before; it will happen again.

That's why it is of so little consequence when things happen. When did a Passion narrative arise? It doesn't matter if it was in 35 or 40 or 80 AD, in any case, there is more than enough time, as historical examples demonstrate. Apologists make these arguments about "early this" or "early that," hoping that their audience will share with them the implicit understanding that if it happened early, it can't be a process of mythmaking. But it can. And was.

I think it was kind of sad that you went to Malaysia to preach, Layman, it looks like the trip was wasted on you. It gave you no understanding of other cultures, it seems not to have spurred any interest in the world outside of Palestine in the 1st century, and doesn't give you any basis by which you might compare and calibrate your thinking about human behavior.

Michael
</font>
Do you agree with Mack or not? And if so, can you defend his viewpoint on this board?

I don't recall ever saying that myths cannot develop quickly. I was reacting to your claim that we can chart the growth of Christian myth by the strata of the Q document.

My trip to Malyasia was of enormous personal gain to me. I'm sad that you would take this opportunity to personally attack it and me.
 
Old 04-19-2001, 11:37 AM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by Layman:
Do you agree with Mack or not? And if so, can you defend his viewpoint on this board?

"Irrelevant," since I was merely using him to point out something about Q, and "no."

I don't recall ever saying that myths cannot develop quickly. I was reacting to your claim that we can chart the growth of Christian myth by the strata of the Q document.

Hmm...was that what I was claiming? All those arguments about time, Layman, reflect an implicit belief that it is somehow important.

My trip to Malyasia was of enormous personal gain to me. I'm sad that you would take this opportunity to personally attack it and me.

I'm sure it was of personal gain to you, but that's not what I was referring to. I noticed that you never seem to draw on your experience to illuminate your understanding of human behavior or Christianity. I'm sorry if you felt offended. But as you will notice from your third post, when you post sweeping, sarcastic attacks, and then back them up with further sarcasm, you're going to get it back. In spades. And as a Christian theist, whose ultimate position is ridiculous, contradictory, and rationally unsupportable, you're in a much weaker position here.

Michael
 
Old 04-19-2001, 11:41 AM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

Kloppenborg's triple-stratification of 'Q', which scholars like Mack and Crossan assume, or any attempt at reconstructing Q's layers for that matter, is by no means on solid ground, though I constantly see skeptics talking about Q1, Q2, and Q3 as if this system of layers is based upon arguments that are widely accepted. For critiques see:

R. A. Horsley, "Questions About Redactional Strata and the Social Relations Reflected in Q," in D. J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 175-209

H. W. Attridge, "Reflections on Research into Q," Semeia 55 (1992) 223-34

C. M. Tuckett, "On the Stratification of Q: A Response," Semeia 55 (1992) 213-22

Allison, The Jesus Traditions, 3-8.

Boyd also discusses its circular nature in Cynic Sage or Son of God?, as does Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God.

See also Van Voorst's balanced treatment in Jesus Outside the New Testament. A good summary statement is that "discerning the compositional stages by which Q may have grown" has been "a most controversial element of Jesus research, and is fraught with difficulties."(p. 164)

SecWebLurker

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.