jgibson000

There is a significant difference between "almost beyond dispute" and "beyond dispute". You gave no hint when you presented what Sanders had to say that his claim was a qualified one.

To find out, why don't you do what many here, including yourself, who make claims about what HJ scholars say, don't do, namely, read the works of the scholars you make comments about?

In any case, the point I'm making is that even in this "popular" book, Sanders is more nuanced that you let on that he is, and certainly more than anyone would think he is if they only had your word about what he claims to go by.

Jeffrey

Steven Avery

Oh, if you want an answer to the question -

"you claim to be up on, and on top of, all the latest scholarship, don't you?"

The answer is no.

Since I never remotely made the claim above I thought you were simply doing a rhetorical flourish or something and I did not realize that simply passing it by would be considered inappropriate by anybody.

Sabbath greetings are not at all meant as 'piety' they are simply a way of approaching the day. I did consider going back and expanding the greetings (to all, rather than to your post) for concern that you might take them as some personal something or other, which was not the intention.

Such greetings really are most appropriate to those who honor the seventh day in a similar fashion and there is no desire to provoke antagonism or debate or acrimony when expressing to any who will receive in fellowship and respect -

Shabbat Shalom,
Steven

jgibson000

Well, you did excoriate Spin when he spoke about the idea of redactional "fatigue" for mooting something that, according to you, was not only totally his own, but which had no scholarly support whatsoever, didn't you?

It's hard to see how such a charge - which presumably you expected all here to take as true -- does not entail a claim on your part to be up on, and on top of, the latest scholarship on Matt. 14:1, 9.

So, to my eyes, your words above -- especially the "never remotely" bit -- have little truth in them.

<edit> In any case, it's a very strange way of honouring the Sabbath.

JG

Toto

I see. I left out the word "almost." But I think even without that word, I am not mischaracterizing this passage from Sanders. While he adds the word "almost", he acts as if it were not there. He accepts the basic thread of the gospel story and does not discuss any of the historical problems.

I make no comment on Sanders, only on this one overly confident paragraph. I have read the book in question, several years ago. I guess it didn't make a big impression on me.

I disagree, but anyone can read the passage for themselves. I would not consider that passage nuanced, even with the word "almost."

Steven Avery

There may well be such a Talmud story. If would be fine to share.

The discussion with spin was a day or three or more back and I will be happy to go over the context and the exact words spoken. My remembrance is that we had more than one focus vis a vis 'fatigue'. For the particular non-redaction that was claimed and for the general concept (as in the discussion with Toto, as I recall) and I do not remember quotes given in either case. So it was hard to apply this to that.

If in fact spin's particular Matthew non-redaction verse is given in scholarly papers as a non-redaction (a correction that Matthew really meant to make but missed doing) and I said otherwise then I would want to speak a correction (whatever one's views of the theory itself). Also I would probably find the theory itself rather interesting reading, to see how modern scholarship speculates to change the presumed intended Bible text on a 'mental finding' (Reagan) of the authors state of mind. And if I spoke in a non-qualified way eg. omitting an 'afaik' where one should have been placed, then that should be added.

And similar could be considered on spin's three verse interpolations from Corinthians. Are they private scholarship ? Or is this a published scholarship view that the verses that point to 'Jesus the Lord' in Corinthians are all interpolations. I would be very interested to see that if it is expressed in scholarship circles. Do they give the before-and-after text ? And if there is no reference to that in scholarly circles then that should be made clear to those involved in the dialog. That the interpolation theory was first developed as an adjunct to an existing interpretation (the one being discussed) and to support the interpretation.

And if there were any untruths spoken I would very much like to correct them, whether spoken on shabbat or work day.

Shalom,
Steven

Doug Shaver

So far as I am aware, it rarely is disputed. An awful lot of people seem to suppose that something is disputable only if, and to the extent that, it is disputed.

JoeWallack

JW:
The main problem is Sanders' Conclusion, that "Jesus was born c. 4 BCE" is "almost beyond dispute" is not supported by his argument. The related problem is the Distance between the evidence required to support such a conclusion and the evidence Sanders presents.

As Sanders' only two supposedly direct sources for dating, "Matthew" and "Luke", differ by at least ten years on the date of Jesus' supposed birth, Sanders or anyone else could only attempt Defensive arguments as to dating. An offensive argument, such as definite birth date, would be Impossible.

The Creative task than is left to the Objective Bible scholar. Why is Sanders wrong here? Just how wrong is he? In effect the whole scholarship process is backwards as the Reader of Sanders must supply the argument that Sanders claims to have been doing.

We have the following reasons to seriously doubt any definite date for Jesus' supposed birth:

1) The earliest extant Christian writings, Paul and "Mark" give no clear information regarding Jesus' birth date and don't seem to be even interested in such information.

2) The earliest supposed birth dating information is from "Matthew". We don't know who or what "Matthew" was.

3) "Matthew's" primary source was "Mark". See 1).

4) "Matthew" largely copies and than edits "Mark" without attribution impeaching his credibility.

5) There is evidence that at least parts of "Matthew's" Infancy Narrative were added to the original "Matthew" impeaching the credibility of "Matthew's" Editors.

6) We have textual evidence that copyists tended to harmonize problem differences between gospels which doubts the credibility of "Matthew's" Transmission.

7) "Matthew's" Infancy Narrative has significant Impossible elements which creates doubt as to the Possible claims such as when Jesus was supposedly born.

8) "Luke" has all the same problems as 1-7 above.

9) As "Luke's" entire Infancy Narrative is significantly different than "Matthew's" "Luke" herself doubts the Assertian from "Matthew" that Jesus was born around 4 BCE. Either "Luke" was familiar with the "Matthean" Infancy Narrative and didn't believe it or "Luke" was not familiar with the "Matthean" Infancy Narrative because it was generally not considered authoritative at the time.

10) Subsequent Christianity seems blissfully either unaware of the birth dating contradiction or at least in denial about it. For the most part, when the issue is addressed Christianity relied mainly on the same texts that are looked at 2,000 years later for evidence. There doesn't seem to be any close to contemporary investigation by Christianity to determine a likely birth date of Jesus. They merely accept the gospels as gospel.

Now that I have made Sanders' argument for him let me point out that the above is a representative problem of Christian Bible scholarship, making conclusions that are not supported by their arguments. You can go to the Amazon site and see that most of the reviews of Sanders are extremely favorable reviews by Christians who are not qualified to evaluate Sanders and therefore don't know what they are talking about. They support Sanders because they are fellow Christians and are supporting Christian Assertians.

I would like to see Jeffrey do something more important here than evaluate an amateur's argument like Ted. Evaluate Sanders' argument that Jesus was born 4 BCE. Will you do that Jeffrey? If not, why not?



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Is Ted the name of an argument?

Have you actually read Sanders, Joseph?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
I'll take that as no Jeffrey. Like I said, non-Christian Bible scholars like you being afraid to publicly criticize well known Christian Bible scholars is a serious problem.

If you think Ted is unqualified to evaluate Sanders here why don't you instead? By not doing so you create a vacuum for those less qualified than you to do so.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Take it in any way you wish. But if you think I am afraid to challenge what well known biblical scholars (is Sanders a Christian?) have claimed, then you haven't read anything I've published.

Now, instead of trying to do psychology, will you please answer my question about whether you have actually read Sanders?

My guess is that you haven't. Otherwise why reply to my question with the diversionary ad hominem above?

Jeffrey