Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Meatros · 05-31-2011, 11:15 AM

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an argument for historicity. It seems to me that the women in the empty tomb story did not testify in any legal sense. Also, they were not believed by the disciples.

Finally, it's not like the Church honors any Gospel of any of the women at the tomb.

So what's the supposed big deal with the testimony of women?

Toto · 05-31-2011, 12:40 PM

NT scholars invented the criterion of embarrassment, and started looking for "embarrassing" items that must have been true. That's all.

Richard Carrier located some court cases where women in fact testified in court, so it's a bogus point in any case.

Did no one trust women? from Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?

Quote:

.... Just because it was unseemly for a woman to appear in court does not mean her testimony was not trusted. Confusing the two is a popular error made by numerous Christian apologists. In actual fact, the evidence proves quite the opposite of Holding's assumption that "women were regarded as 'bad witnesses' in the ancient world." The evidence does not support such a blanket distrust of female testimony, but shows instead that female testimony was often trusted, even in a court of law.

Of course, it is already improper to argue from courtroom decorum to everyday credibility. The Gospels are not court documents. They are, at best (in the case of Luke), histories. Not the same thing. And when it came to this context, of using women as sources for historical claims, there is no evidence of distrust--any more for women than for men of comparable status or condition.[3] Josephus, for example, has his entire account of the heroic sacrifices at Gamala and Masada from no other source than two women in each case--yet shows no embarrassment at this. Josephus often forgets to tell us who his sources were for a particular story, yet here he goes out of his way to report his only sources were women. That makes no sense, unless Josephus regarded his sources as quite respectable, and therefore actually worth mentioning, which is quite the opposite of a woman's testimony being an embarrassment.[4] Of course, as a snob himself, Josephus may have scoffed at the testimony of humble women, just as he would that of humble men, but such elite snobbery was more widely disdained than emulated (as we shall see in Chapter 12, and have already seen in Chapter 2).

Otherwise, even the Gospel of John attests to how readily the testimony of a woman could be accepted: "many of the Samaritans from that city believed in Jesus because of the account given by the woman who testified" to his psychic powers (4:39). . .

bacht · 05-31-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

So what's the supposed big deal with the testimony of women?

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that women were always attracted to Christianity, thus for gospel writers to insert them into the first Easter may be an accurate reflection of church demography.

Many gnostic sects were anti-female and anti-sex. Early catholics seem to have considered women to be worth acknowledging in the competition for membership.

stephan huller · 06-01-2011, 12:40 AM

Admittedly I haven't read Carrier's point but it doesn't sound like a very good argument. It really doesn't matter what the role of women were in Roman society at large. The Jewish religion doesn't think to highly of women (perhaps owing to some resentment for our mother's turning us into complete wusses).

There is something remarkable about the role of women in the gospel in terms of it being a Jewish document. This doesn't necessarily having anything to do with Jesus being a historical person. Yet it is remarkable.

Consider also the Samaritan woman being a Dosithean (so Jerome). This is very remarkable too. There is something very interesting and very curious about the provenance of the document. This wasn't created in some generic factory in Rome. Whoever wrote this text had a very interesting background. He had clearly strong relationships with women (or strong women in his life) and was probably closely associated with Samaritanism. Why else make the reference to Mt Gerizim? Did the contemporary pagan world even know what a Samaritan was? Why introduce it? Certainly it wasn't because Jesus was a real person.

PhilosopherJay · 06-01-2011, 05:25 AM

Hi Stephan,

I agree it is remarkable the role of women in the gospel. I have previously hypothesized that a woman, Mary, wrote the original gospel tale. The love triangle with Mary and Peter competing for the love of their master/Rabbi Jesus was the central part of the story. The resolution was originally, perhaps, Jesus on the cross telling Peter to take Mary into his home and look after her, or perhaps telling his beloved Mary to take his mother into her home and take care of her as her mother-in-law, a direct snub to the treacherous Peter. The anti-Mary male redactors painted over that in an ugly fashion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Admittedly I haven't read Carrier's point but it doesn't sound like a very good argument. It really doesn't matter what the role of women were in Roman society at large. The Jewish religion doesn't think to highly of women (perhaps owing to some resentment for our mother's turning us into complete wusses).

There is something remarkable about the role of women in the gospel in terms of it being a Jewish document. This doesn't necessarily having anything to do with Jesus being a historical person. Yet it is remarkable.

Consider also the Samaritan woman being a Dosithean (so Jerome). This is very remarkable too. There is something very interesting and very curious about the provenance of the document. This wasn't created in some generic factory in Rome. Whoever wrote this text had a very interesting background. He had clearly strong relationships with women (or strong women in his life) and was probably closely associated with Samaritanism. Why else make the reference to Mt Gerizim? Did the contemporary pagan world even know what a Samaritan was? Why introduce it? Certainly it wasn't because Jesus was a real person.

Meatros · 06-01-2011, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Admittedly I haven't read Carrier's point but it doesn't sound like a very good argument. It really doesn't matter what the role of women were in Roman society at large. The Jewish religion doesn't think to highly of women (perhaps owing to some resentment for our mother's turning us into complete wusses).

I'm not sure about that - in that I mean, I just read this paper which suggests that the Gospel writers had Roman influence. This paper suggests that the Roman concept of 'adoption' is what explains Luke's genealogies.

Of course, the other explanation (that Luke/Matthew were simply making up the genealogies) is probably more likely I admit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is something remarkable about the role of women in the gospel in terms of it being a Jewish document. This doesn't necessarily having anything to do with Jesus being a historical person. Yet it is remarkable.

I believe Carrier suggests that the Gospels were trying to appeal to women, so that might be it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Consider also the Samaritan woman being a Dosithean (so Jerome). This is very remarkable too. There is something very interesting and very curious about the provenance of the document. This wasn't created in some generic factory in Rome. Whoever wrote this text had a very interesting background. He had clearly strong relationships with women (or strong women in his life) and was probably closely associated with Samaritanism. Why else make the reference to Mt Gerizim? Did the contemporary pagan world even know what a Samaritan was? Why introduce it? Certainly it wasn't because Jesus was a real person.

What are your thoughts on this? I get the feeling there's more to your 'interest' here...

That we are just scratching the surface...

Meatros · 06-01-2011, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

I agree it is remarkable the role of women in the gospel. I have previously hypothesized that a woman, Mary, wrote the original gospel tale. The love triangle with Mary and Peter competing for the love of their master/Rabbi Jesus was the central part of the story. The resolution was originally, perhaps, Jesus on the cross telling Peter to take Mary into his home and look after her, or perhaps telling his beloved Mary to take his mother into her home and take care of her as her mother-in-law, a direct snub to the treacherous Peter. The anti-Mary male redactors painted over that in an ugly fashion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Weird...Interesting though.

Isn't there a Gospel of Mary? If the testimony of women (the criteria of embarrassment) holds weight, then why do these same Christian scholars reject the Gospel of Mary?

Atheos · 06-01-2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

I agree it is remarkable the role of women in the gospel. I have previously hypothesized that a woman, Mary, wrote the original gospel tale. The love triangle with Mary and Peter competing for the love of their master/Rabbi Jesus was the central part of the story. The resolution was originally, perhaps, Jesus on the cross telling Peter to take Mary into his home and look after her, or perhaps telling his beloved Mary to take his mother into her home and take care of her as her mother-in-law, a direct snub to the treacherous Peter. The anti-Mary male redactors painted over that in an ugly fashion.

I'm a little unclear about this hypothesis of yours. Are you saying you think Mary Magdelene wrote a gospel before any of the 4 canonical traditions were written and it is this gospel that includes the conflict between Peter and herself?

Secondly you're suggesting that this hypothetical gospel had Mary Magdelene being charged with the care of Jesus's mother when he got crucified?

When I first read your post I thought you were suggesting that Mary was the author of GJohn.

hjalti · 06-01-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an argument for historicity. It seems to me that the women in the empty tomb story did not testify in any legal sense. Also, they were not believed by the disciples.

Finally, it's not like the Church honors any Gospel of any of the women at the tomb.

So what's the supposed big deal with the testimony of women?

This argument makes no sense to me. Why? Because in the oldest gospel (and the source for the story about the empty tomb in the other three gospels in my opinion) the women don't testify to anything. They "said nothing to anyone".

PhilosopherJay · 06-01-2011, 08:50 AM

Hi Atheos,

Yes, I believe that GJohn used Mary's gospel as a source, as did Mark/Matthew. The references to the "beloved disciple" were originally references to Mary.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

I agree it is remarkable the role of women in the gospel. I have previously hypothesized that a woman, Mary, wrote the original gospel tale. The love triangle with Mary and Peter competing for the love of their master/Rabbi Jesus was the central part of the story. The resolution was originally, perhaps, Jesus on the cross telling Peter to take Mary into his home and look after her, or perhaps telling his beloved Mary to take his mother into her home and take care of her as her mother-in-law, a direct snub to the treacherous Peter. The anti-Mary male redactors painted over that in an ugly fashion.

I'm a little unclear about this hypothesis of yours. Are you saying you think Mary Magdelene wrote a gospel before any of the 4 canonical traditions were written and it is this gospel that includes the conflict between Peter and herself?

Secondly you're suggesting that this hypothetical gospel had Mary Magdelene being charged with the care of Jesus's mother when he got crucified?

When I first read your post I thought you were suggesting that Mary was the author of GJohn.

05-31-2011, 11:15 AM	#1
Meatros Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 944	Testimony of Women I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an argument for historicity. It seems to me that the women in the empty tomb story did not testify in any legal sense. Also, they were not believed by the disciples. Finally, it's not like the Church honors any Gospel of any of the women at the tomb. So what's the supposed big deal with the testimony of women?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2011, 12:40 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Admittedly I haven't read Carrier's point but it doesn't sound like a very good argument. It really doesn't matter what the role of women were in Roman society at large. The Jewish religion doesn't think to highly of women (perhaps owing to some resentment for our mother's turning us into complete wusses). There is something remarkable about the role of women in the gospel in terms of it being a Jewish document. This doesn't necessarily having anything to do with Jesus being a historical person. Yet it is remarkable. Consider also the Samaritan woman being a Dosithean (so Jerome). This is very remarkable too. There is something very interesting and very curious about the provenance of the document. This wasn't created in some generic factory in Rome. Whoever wrote this text had a very interesting background. He had clearly strong relationships with women (or strong women in his life) and was probably closely associated with Samaritanism. Why else make the reference to Mt Gerizim? Did the contemporary pagan world even know what a Samaritan was? Why introduce it? Certainly it wasn't because Jesus was a real person.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.