Bede

penatis, you should read posts because you'd see I had supported you against Nomad here and said that no pre forth century fragment exists. But are you claiming the verses in question were not part of Matt's original? Do you insist on original documents for everything?

Origen, commentary on Matthew (about 240AD): These same mighty works are still done every day; the veil of the temple is rent for the Saints, in order to reveal the things that are contained within. The earthquakes, that is, all flesh because of the new word and new things of the New Testament. The rocks are rent, i.e. the mystery of the Prophets, that we may see the spiritual mysteries bid in their depths. The graves are the bodies of sinful souls, that is, souls dead to God; but when by God's grace these souls have been raised, their bodies which before were graves, become bodies of Saints, and appear to go out of themselves, and follow Him who rose again, and walk with Him in newness of life; and such as are worthy to have their conversation in heaven enter into the Holy City at divers times, and appear unto many who see their good works.

Frankly, this argument is rather silly. That this particular part of the NT nas not turned up on one of the 40 odd pre 300AD papyrus fragments means nothing at all. It certainly would not make the event any more or less historical even if we found Matt's autograph manuscript.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Bill Snedden

Nomad -

You're certainly entitled to your opinions about his conclusions , but I think you dismiss Mr. Carrier's status as a scholar "in the subject" too quickly.

From his bio, I see that Richard has three degrees in ancient history, and is currently working on his doctorate. His areas of specialty include historiography, intellectual and religious history, and the decline of the Roman Empire. He should certainly have done more than enough studying to comment knowledgeably about the historicity of biblical accounts, especially in the NT.

From your postings, I know that you do not limit your definition of "scholar" to "one with whose conclusions I agree", but if Richard Carrier does not fit the definition of "scholar", I'm not sure who would.

I would only like to add that this discussion (and the "redating of Mark" thread) has been really interesting. I don't have enough knowledge to add to the debate, but just reading the posts and replies has been really valuable.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Of course Mr. Carrier has the right to comment on the Bible, just like the rest of us do, but we should not confuse his "right" with his expertise. Quite simply, Carrier is a highly intelligent and articulate individual, but his qualifications as an Bible scholar are no better than, say, JP Moreland or William Lane Craig, two well known apologists. Personally I avoid quoting from the latter in a debate where true scholarship is required, and I also make note of the obvious bias of such a source.

Since Carrier's study in the New Testament appears to be confined to what he learned in Sunday School, together with what he has picked up on his own, I would say that his opinions are, at best, just that, and should not be given any special weight (as we should in the case of Raymond Brown, or Bruce Metzger, or Robin Griffith-Jones or the like). At the same time, if we like a particular argument or opinion put forward, even by a true expert in the field, it is critical to at least have a working understanding of the reasoning behind such opinions, as well as the a priori assumptions and methodology of such individuals. For example, does this person have a theological or political agenda in their writings? If they do, then this should be stated clearly up front so that those of us that read the specific author's work know where they are coming from and what purposes they might have.

The biases of the scholar should not automatically invalidate their works, of course, but we should know what and who these people are, and what they believe don't you think?

Carrier is a scholar, but his specialty is not New Testament (or Biblical) studies. I, as well as a number of others who post on these boards also have similar training and levels of expertise to Carrier (although perhaps not his forum, or the time to put out as much material as he does on the internet), but I would never want anyone to consider these opinions to be more valid than any other without supporting expert opinions, and especially hard evidence behind those opinions. I would personally place Carrier on a level with Glen Miller of the Christian Think Tank, or JP Holding of Tekton Ministries or our very own Metacrock (who has a Masters in ancient history and a doctorate in theology) and Bede in terms of levels of expertise in Biblical studies, but none of these individuals would, I believe, place themselves in the ranks of top level scholarship.

When Carrier receives his doctorate, and begins publishing some books, then I would probably place him on a level perhaps of Dr. William Lane Craig, although Craig has a number of years head start on Carrier both in publications and reputation.

When it comes to actual Bible scholarship, I think we should stick with Raymond Brown, Robin Griffith-Jones, Robin Lane Fox, Metzeger, Friedman, Stanton, Daniel Wallace, JAT Robinson, Guthrie and the like.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 10, 2001).]

Actually I wouldn’t have never known that MetaCrock had a degree in anything unless him having expressed it. But then again, you don’t need to be able to even read or write in order or have a high school education in order to get into Jerry Falwell’s Liberty college unless they have changed it. If you couldn‘t read or write they would assign counselors to you, and help you work on getting a GED or equivalent. What school did MC graduate from? I think I’ve read from Bede’s site that he is an Oxford graduate, so that is a lot different. I think he specialized in physics. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

Most apologists I have seen on this board you and MC in particular(Bede, mostly an exception), tend to argue with “attitude statements” which may tell us something about how strongly the writer feels about particular things, but it doesn’t tell us something about those things, making all such statements empirically meaningless.

John

Hello John

Since you do not know Metacrock at all, your slander of his education and character is unwarranted. Listing his qualifications for you is quite pointless however, just as trying to explain to you what a disability like dyslexia happens to mean, but I have rarely expected some of the atheists on these boards to refrain from the need and desire to fire cheap shots.

Nomad

One does not need to attack Metacrock's learning disabilities to see that his scholarship and logic are extremely poor indeed. I've rebutted a few of his works; in most I can tell by the end of his first substantive paragraph that what follows will be not only wrong but manifestly stupid.

Metacrock has shown that he cannot distinguish faith from empirical reality. He has said explicitly that quality of faith is sufficient to declare as fact any proposition that supports that faith. I don't know about you, but I cannot take the guy seriously at all after reading a statement like that.

This is what I'm talking about: "attitude statements" and why they are worthless. Which is the bulk of your posts. I think I’m going to start doing a few of these at least towards you. I know what MC shares in arguments that he addresses, and they are on par with yours. It would be important to know what school he graduated from since you brought this up into the discussion. You stated MC had a Masters in ancient history and a doctorate in theology. I bet Bede can sure the hell see a difference in an Oxford degree compared to a Liberty degree. If you didn’t want it brought into the discussion of what school he got his degree from then you shouldn’t have brought it into the discussion. What is this, an “argument from silence?" Where have I heard that before?

John



[This message has been edited by John the Atheist (edited January 10, 2001).]

Two things:

First, Metacrock is a personal friend, and while I do not agree with him on a great number of issues, I do not for a moment question that he thinks deeply about them, and has carefully researched through them before drawing his conclusions. I have noted that SingleDad considers Meta to be a waste of skin, and quite frankly, I am coming to see SD's contributions to most of the threads I participate on to be pretty thin. Insults pass for arguments against Metacrock, and this is truly sad.

Second, I do know the university from which Meta has gotten his degrees, but have not shared this information out of respect for his privacy. I only raised the point about his dislexia because I have seen him already mention it on these boards. I will say, without reservation that it is from on of the Big 10 Universities in the United States, and he is highly respected in his field. If you wish to call me a liar, then so be it. I cannot change your opinion regardless. But if you don't like debating Meta (or me, or anyone else for that matter), these are free boards, and anyone can do as they wish.

Good day gentlemen, I do hope you will one day understand the true meaning of charity and compassion.

Nomad

Nomad, I do understand the meaning of charity and compassion better than the Bible.
(I do not do on others, despicable things, shown in the Bible as God approved, and I help others without material gain to me).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Two things:

First, Metacrock is a personal friend, and while I do not agree with him on a great number of issues, I do not for a moment question that he thinks deeply about them, and has carefully researched through them before drawing his conclusions. I have noted that SingleDad considers Meta to be a waste of skin, and quite frankly, I am coming to see SD's contributions to most of the threads I participate on to be pretty thin. Insults pass for arguments against Metacrock, and this is truly sad.

It should be duly noted that Metacrock and Nomad insult, on a regular basis, posters with whom they disagree. Their insults pass for answers, arguments, facts, opinions, assertions, etc. To my knowledge, SingleDad DOES NOT indulge in the practice of insulting those with whom he disagrees. Nor does John the Atheist.

Second, I do know the university from which Meta has gotten his degrees, but have not shared this information out of respect for his privacy. I only raised the point about his dislexia because I have seen him already mention it on these boards. I will say, without reservation that it is from on of the Big 10 Universities in the United States, and he is highly respected in his field.

I have read numerous posts by Metacrock and visited his website. Based on what I have read, I think there is good reason to question what Nomad is saying. I would like to know precisely what Metacrock's field is and who among his peers respects him highly.

If you wish to call me a liar, then so be it. I cannot change your opinion regardless. But if you don't like debating Meta (or me, or anyone else for that matter), these are free boards, and anyone can do as they wish.

Good day gentlemen, I do hope you will one day understand the true meaning of charity and compassion.

Nomad's last statement epitomizes the concept of unintended irony.

[emphasis added]



[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 10, 2001).]