FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-2004, 05:44 AM   #21
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
TJM: load of old cobblers; Freke and Gandy: Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Not written by me. I don’t have editorial control. An occupational hazard in any published writing!

Quote:
So, tell me Bede, grad student, your credentials, if you will.
Oh. Well here goes.

Quote:
History student meaning what, general history or specific time period?
I specialise in the history of science and religion up until about 1700.

Quote:
Intended doctoral theses in what?
Sixteenth century mathematics and natural philosophy.

Quote:
Where there are differences or disagreements between Gospels, or within a Gospel, the principle to be applied is that the more spectacular version is almost certainly inauthentic, an authorial enlargement upon the simpler version.
True, unless we have reason to believe that the other author was writing an epitome such as Florus wrote of Livy and Mark is believed by some to have done with Matthew.

Quote:
“The trouble with the criterion of dissimilarity is the basic operating assumption of the form-critical method: the early Christians passed down nothing they did not find usable. Indeed, the material was passed down via the usage. This means that every individual saying or anecdote represents some aspect of the early Christian movement. None is simply an objective datum. Every single one thus fails, and must fail, the criterion of dissimilarity.�
This is clearly untrue. Vinnie’s work on the lack of gentile material in the gospels shows that early Christians did not freely create useful material (which is necessary for Price’s objection to work.).

Quote:
Joining its fall by the wayside is the so-called criterion of embarrassment. Even those sayings or depictions which any given evangelist might have considered embarrassing and yet has preserved, must have come to him through the usage channel, and if so was thus acceptable to those who first passed it on (or created it)...
Non sequitur. The point of the embarrassment criteria is precisely that the usage channel almost certainly did not find the material useful. To simply claim they did is not a methodology but an assertion.

Quote:
rejection of the supernatural element because of a commitment to philosophical naturalism. While I see no impediment to defending such a commitment, Price points out that the accusation is really misplaced. All science and even history works according to the principle of “methodological atheism.� That is, it cannot introduce a deus ex machina into the plot; it cannot allow for “surprises� or else everything becomes chaotic.
As long as we note the word ‘methodological’ and accept that we sometimes cannot find ‘rational’ explanations and are willing to leave gaps (more relevant for history than science), this is fine. We must also avoid anachronism and always remember that to the ancients the supernatural was very real.

Quote:
Another criterion is the principle of “biographical analogy.� If everything about Jesus in the Gospels conforms to the period’s widespread “Mythic Hero Archetype,� there is no secular information left to tie into the fabric of history. Finally, if historical evidence contradicts the Gospel accounts, reliability must lie with the former.
This is Doherty not Price speaking, I expect. Would work fine in principal except that the alleged parallels don’t exist or are flukes. The Lincoln/Kennedy assassination parallel is an example of this going wrong that we can all accept.

Quote:
What is the "academic guild?" Do you belong to it? What kind of credentials does one need to get into it?
People working in and around universities. Yes, I belong to it. One needs to have a higher degree in the relevant subject, accept scholarly methods and publish academic works. That said, I do consider Doherty to be worth serious attention (unlike Freke and Gandy) even though he is dead wrong.

Quote:
How do historians "evaluate their sources?" Do they apply the criteria Price lists above? What is this "give and take?"
Price goes too far (even without Doherty’s editorialising) which is why his work is rejected by most HJ scholars. The criteria are better explained by JP Meier and also the editorial in the Jesus Seminar’s ‘Five Gospels’. My own work on HJ method is here. FWIW, this got top graded in my MA.

Quote:
(I imagine conferences in venerable stone floored halls of academia, or cozy yet cranky chats in book-lined offices with cups of tea and small fires burning on the grate.)
Well they aren’t. They seem very like business awareness training seminars.

Quote:
Finally I take it you are a Christian. Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior, died an actual death to save your from sin? How do you think your beliefs cloud your perceptions of Bibical criticism? If you are orthodox, and F&G are gnostics, are you confident you can objectively criticize their work? Why?
My beliefs are irrelevant. Critique my work. I don't mention Freke and Gandy's religion - I point out their mistakes, omissions and inaccuracies. I note you didn't address a single point I made in my review.

Finally don’t take stuff so seriously. You made a mistake believing TJM due to your self confessed lack of knowledge in the field. Rather than getting all spiky, accept you got it wrong and move on to better things. Thinking TJM is rubbish does not make you a less faithful atheist (or whatever you are).

Yours

Bede

Bede’s Library – faith and reason
 
Old 06-25-2004, 07:20 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
This critique is by a liberal Christian who is a PhD history student at Cambridge University. He also does book reviews for learned journals although of rather more scholarly books than this one. He is also me.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
Beware of the naked man that hands you his trouser.

Details below.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...49#post1675249
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-25-2004, 11:16 AM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Quote:
“The trouble with the criterion of dissimilarity is the basic operating assumption of the form-critical method: the early Christians passed down nothing they did not find usable. Indeed, the material was passed down via the usage. This means that every individual saying or anecdote represents some aspect of the early Christian movement. None is simply an objective datum. Every single one thus fails, and must fail, the criterion of dissimilarity.�
This is clearly untrue. Vinnie’s work on the lack of gentile material in the gospels shows that early Christians did not freely create useful material (which is necessary for Price’s objection to work.).
How does Price's objection to the criterion of dissimilarity require "freely created useful material"? It does appear that early Christians freely adapted what they found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And I would dispute that there is a lack of gentile material in the gospels.

Quote:
Quote:
Joining its fall by the wayside is the so-called criterion of embarrassment. Even those sayings or depictions which any given evangelist might have considered embarrassing and yet has preserved, must have come to him through the usage channel, and if so was thus acceptable to those who first passed it on (or created it)...
Non sequitur. The point of the embarrassment criteria is precisely that the usage channel almost certainly did not find the material useful. To simply claim they did is not a methodology but an assertion.
We have considered the criterion of embarrassment here at length, in particular with regards to the baptism of Jesus by John. There is no evidence that Mark, the presumed earliest source, found the story embarrassing. The later gospels found some aspects embarrassing for their theological purpsoses, and made appropriate alterations, but still found some use for the story. No other field of history uses this "criterion of embarrassment" to separate fact from fiction in religious documents.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-25-2004, 11:47 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Oh. Well here goes.
Of course if you are telling me that 2 authors are not scholars, I would want to know how your credentials exceed theirs. It seems you hold a British MA, yet put down one of the authors (forget which one) for holding an inferior British MA, just like you!

Quote:
I specialise in the history of science and religion up until about 1700.
Sixteenth century mathematics and natural philosophy.
Would that be the history of all world religions, or just Western? If western, only Christianity, or also pre-and-post-Temple Judaism and other Near Eastern religions? How deep is your exploration of "religion" while you also pursue philosophy, math and science?

Quote:
This is clearly untrue. Vinnie’s work on the lack of gentile material in the gospels shows that early Christians did not freely create useful material
Who is Vinnie and what is his work? Is he a professor at your university?What do you mean by "useful material?"

Quote:
Non sequitur. The point of the embarrassment criteria is precisely that the usage channel almost certainly did not find the material useful. To simply claim they did is not a methodology but an assertion...
As long as we note the word ‘methodological’ and accept that we sometimes cannot find ‘rational’ explanations and are willing to leave gaps (more relevant for history than science), this is fine. We must also avoid anachronism and always remember that to the ancients the supernatural was very real...
This is Doherty not Price speaking, I expect. Would work fine in principal except that the alleged parallels don’t exist or are flukes. The Lincoln/Kennedy assassination parallel is an example of this going wrong that we can all accept.
I will take these comments under consideration. I did expect, however, your own list of historical critical criteria in return though.

Quote:
People working in and around universities. Yes, I belong to it. One needs to have a higher degree in the relevant subject, accept scholarly methods and publish academic works.
And you have published---where? On Tektonics only or elsewhere? What are your scholarly methods?

Quote:
That said, I do consider Doherty to be worth serious attention (unlike Freke and Gandy) even though he is dead wrong.
Spoken like a True Xtian TM.

Quote:
Price goes too far (even without Doherty’s editorialising) which is why his work is rejected by most HJ scholars.
Doherty--dead wrong. Price--goes too far. F&G, Tweeledeedee. Assertions without evidence.

Cutting edge research--scary!

Quote:
The criteria are better explained by JP Meier and also the editorial in the Jesus Seminar’s ‘Five Gospels’.
By JP Meier where?

As far as your rec of the JS 5 Gospels, thank you for that. All I am asking for is something, anything, specific.

My own work on HJ method is here. FWIW, this got top graded in my MA.[/quote]

According to your own putdown of British universities you attend, perhaps not worth much?

Quote:
My beliefs are irrelevant. Critique my work. I don't mention Freke and Gandy's religion - I point out their mistakes, omissions and inaccuracies. I note you didn't address a single point I made in my review.
Just laying some groundwork first, old boy. Your credentials, your historical-critical criteria. I still do not know your criteria (unless you fully accept Meier and the J Seminar's) or where you have published to show your place in the academic guild. And if you put no value in your degree from your institution of higher learning, should I?

Others here have complained F&G's gnostic beliefs prevent their being objective. I wonder if your orthodox Xtian beliefs cloud yours. Or does it only go one way?

Quote:
Finally don’t take stuff so seriously. You made a mistake believing TJM due to your self confessed lack of knowledge in the field.
I am skeptical yet open-minded. Believing without evidence is not my style. I just want to know what is wrong with the book and what is right, beyond darkly muttered vague grumbles about bloopers. Does this make me "too serious?"

Quote:
Rather than getting all spiky, accept you got it wrong and move on to better things.
And, in your opinion, better things would be...? Your article on Tektonics, to be swallowed whole and without "spiky" comments?

Quote:
Thinking TJM is rubbish does not make you a less faithful atheist (or whatever you are).
I still do not think TJM is total rubbish. Perhaps overly speculative. If it is on a level with The Chariots of Gods?, I will need evidence. So far, I have little coming from you. Speculation and uncertainty seems to come with the territory, as you wrote here:

Quote:
Crossan believes the Historical Jesus leaves much to the imagination but others claim the early Church is even more of a blank slate. “It is not possible to explain the expansion of Christianity convincingly,� says Paul Veyne in the introduction to the German edition of Peter Brown’s The Last Pagans. Veyne continues “We know utterly nothing about it; we haven’t the slightest idea of the shape a causal explanation of the process might take on and in any case, frankly viewed, any attempted explanation would be both purposeless and impossible.�
But, thanks for making a start.
Magdlyn is offline  
Old 06-25-2004, 11:54 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
Beware of the naked man that hands you his trouser.

Details below.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...49#post1675249
Jacob, thank you so very much! My computer time is up for now. I will comment later.
Magdlyn is offline  
Old 06-26-2004, 05:15 AM   #26
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Madlyn,

Looking over your post, I can't see much point in continuing this conversation. I really don't think that we can communicate. I am disappointed you found Robin Lane Fox's brilliant, witty and colourful 'Pagans and Christians' too dry to finsh, but that suggests we probably aren't on the same wave length.

Enjoy your debate with 'Don.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 06-26-2004, 11:09 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,230
Default

2 words. Cop out.
Magdlyn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Top

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