I find this very interesting. You admit that you have not looked at the evidence as much as Nomad, then you say that he is unscientific. Then you go on about how neither of you will change your minds'. Who has the bias in this response?

I'm not saying he's unscientific because he comes to a particular conclusion, I'm saying it because he's talked about his process. His process is not scientific. Which means I can't trust the fruits of his scholarship.

Nomad and I are not going to change our minds about our religion based on scientific conclusions regarding details of historical analysis. I most certainly will and would change my mind about the matter in question (actually make my mind; I'd never considered the question of the origin of Matthew before).

Penatis, I have enjoyed debating with you. It has pushed me even more into my studies.

At one point you stated that I should go back and study the NT MSS... That felt like an ad hominem for the benefit of others. However, I'm sure my posts were sprinkled with a little of that too. The "~90" was an error of haste. I assure you that I am also quite well versed...

It does "miff" me almost to the point of name-calling however, when you insist on labeling yourself as "unbiased" and "neutral". I think any true scholar would admit his biases.

One other thing, you constantly sprinkle your posts with statements about the 300,000 errors, corrections, etc. in the NT MSS. I just want to add the most of those "errors" are changes in the structure of a word or a shift of a word to another of a similar nature. Even with the "major" lack of evidence for the longer ending of Mark, the text still leaves the tomb empty. That has to be accounted for, not to mention the numbers MSSs that mention "a resurrection".

Most of the word or phrase changing errors, I don't see as a major problem. If you will, for my research as well as others, would you mind presenting some of the errors that you find particularly damaging?

I have to say that I disagree with many of your views and especially your conclusions, penatis. I definitely do think they come with their own set of biased pressuppositions. Regardless, I want to thank you for a true scholarly debate which I don't get very often here.

Anyway, I want so bad to go back over your posts because I believe I have many more valid points. However, time just does not permit it.

How do you guys have the time for this anyway??

Ish

P.S.- Penatis, I am familiar with other scholars than those on the Jesus Seminar such as Brown and Koester(sp?). However, your views seem closest to those of the Jesus Seminar so I was pointing out their clear biases. I also believe these other scholars come with their own sets of presuppositions. That was more my point.

Again, for research purposes, I wouldn't mind a list of the scholar's you've read. I'm sure I've missed someone.

Man, I think I'm addicted to this posting...

Thanks, (maybe, hopefully, final post)
Ish

Of course you have penatis. By labelling the NT authors as mere propagandists, you deny them any respect or legitimacy, placing your personal faith in your beliefs above theirs. Such is your right, but I do wish you would recognize your own biases, and how they colour your view.

Since the word "propagandist" carries a very specific conotation, you are simply being disengenuous, at best, in your denials.

Dealt with by me, Bede and Ish, and the horse is now quite sufficiently dead.

I'll cover this off when I get back next week. Tomorrow I am off for a business trip, and won't be back until late Sunday, so I don't want to start something then just bugger off.

And to the vast majority of NT scholars it isn't problematic, but to each his own. As I have said before, translational variations and spelling mistakes just aren't that big a deal, unless you want to make them such of course.

Once again you are taking enormous leaps in logic that have obviously left me quite breathless. To make this a important point, you still have to offer significant redactions and changes to the text, not just copyist "typos". And by significant, we mean something that actually would change Christian theology.

I would love to see a working definition of arbitrary here. Once again your willingness to belittle the efforts and sincerity of the early members of the church simply betrays your biases.

When we speak of the wealth of material available from NT MSS, we are comparing it against what we have on any other comparable ancient works. The writings of Homer, Livy, Tacitus, Setonius, Virgil, Cicero and countless other ancient authors don't even come close to providing us with anything close to as much material. The entire reason you can even point to so many variations in the MSS of NT books is because we DO happen to have so much material available to us. If we were to have only one or two extant copies, with a few fragments, then obviously the number of errors would be much smaller, but this would not make our knowledge of what the originals looked like. In fact, the opposite would be true. The entire science of textual criticism is built on studying the variations within available texts then trying to piece together what we can as best as we can. The fact that you do not appear to understand this most basic principle of the science is troubling, but common amongst amateurs in the business. This is why I have suggested that you take a harder look at the works of actual textual critics like Metzger and R.E. Brown and Daniel Wallace, and see why they are far less troubled by the "errors" in the text than you are.

Of course, to this point, you have seemed willing to write it off to the fact that these men tend to be Christians, but even noted sceptics like Robin Lane Fox in The Unathorised Version and Michael Grant recognize the overall reliability of the texts (as well as their resulting translations in modern times) that we do have available to us.

But that hasn't been the argument here. We are discussing whether or not Matthew wrote that there was a mass resurrection when Jesus died. So far as I am aware, scholarship believes that he did, and the fact that we do not have originals from Matthew hardly proves that he didn't. In addition, even if Matthew WAS making a theological as opposed to an historical point with these passages, I have yet to see why this would be important. Finally, if we go with your worst case scenario, and find out that this passage, like Mark 16:9-16, or John 8:1-11, what would be the problem here? No Christian theology is built around this part of Matthew. If we find it to be a later redaction, then the newer translations of the Bible will simply make a note of it.

Scholars of course. They exist on both sides you know.

Hmm... first, I never trust feelings. As a Christian, I do believe in the power of the Holy Spirit though, and if God does exist, then it is axiomatic that He has inspired the authors and believers. And if there is no God, then inspiration is irrelavent. In the world of the atheistic sceptic, such a thing, like wisdom and insight, is a clear impossibility.

Without error.

I was paraphrasing, but I do believe my summarization of your views as presented on this thread are accurate. I have not seen you correct me below in any event.

Your reasoning in this question is purely circular. You believe that there is no God(s), therefore there cannot possibly be an inspiration behind any religous text. Since your belief is just that, belief, it has no more solid a foundation than does that of the theists that disagree with you. To each his own circle.

I do not think that religious inspiration is a a scientifically provable thing, any more than wisdom, or insight, or beauty, or love, or a host of other real things, are scientifically provable.

I do find the lack of faith of the sceptic in any of these things, simply because he cannot prove them scientifically to be rather odd. But I have come to see it as simply a function of the dominant prejudice of our age.

Nomad

Your assumption fails here SD. I began my investigation as an agnostic (Bede began as an atheist I believe), and others have as well. The reason you, penatis and other sceptics discount our conclusions is simply because we have reached ones that differ from your own. While that is cool, it is simply a reflection of differing sets of biases. Penatis claims that it is preferable to remain sceptical ones entire life on matters such as the Bible, but clearly others differ. I certainly do. And to be candid, I do not think that scepticism equates to neutrality, and this error is perhaps the most glaring that I encounter amongst sceptics on these or any other discussion boards.

With all due respect SD, you do not understand that textual criticism is a genuine science. I will not claim to be an expert in it, but since you do not know how it works, I would recommend that you not use your ignorance of its methodologies as an excuse for discounting its conclusions.

Nomad

Well you must be a mong then to arrive at the conclusions you have. How can anyone pass themselves off as a 'scholar' and then say they became a believer cos they read that load of old tosh. Weren't you trying to discriminate when you were studying, or just swallowing it all whole? I wish I could sell you an insurance policy mate. I have read The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, Greek myths and legends, & Snow White and the Legend of 7-Up. I didn't think for a minute any of them was true. Perhaps my fiction detecting skills are keener than yours.

It's a free world and you can believe what you want. I just don't think you should be trusted with small children that's all, or have access to sharp objects.

Boro Nut

I wanted to leave this one up. The FACT that you do not understand that an incorrect belief or position cannot be rationally defended is among the more astonishing things you have said on this or any other thread. If you truly believe this, that is a very sad thing indeed, since it means that in your mind, people cannot have reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me make this simple for you penatis. When I asked you to produce Metzger's empiracal evidence that supported YOUR conclusions, you simply told us to read his book. This is unacceptable. You have made assertions and drawn conclusions based on how you have read Metzger's book. I am not going to try and divine what you used as "empiracal evidence". I have asked you to produce it. For several pages on this thread now, you have failed to do exactly that, and if your only response remains, "Read Metzger's book", then we are done on this topic.

See how clouded your views are here? You think that simply by citing a book, you can claim that you have produced evidence. You have not done any such thing of course, and the fact that you do not even realize this is far more telling than you probably can imagine. I will no longer ask for you to produce the evidence you claim exists to support your beliefs, but that is not for lack of trying. I merely acknowledge that you do not wish to do so and I cannot compel you to change your mind.

This is exactly why I do come to these boards. At the same time, when someone makes the attempt to teach me something, I demand high levels of evidenciary support that I can cross verify on my own. You have thus far failed to tell me a single thing that I have not already known about Metzger's work, yet the fact that you draw exactly the opposite conclusions that he does on the overal veracity of the NT tells me that you believe Metzger and those like him have somehow misunderstood the evidence. So I have wanted to see the evidence that you believe he has misunderstood. You have failed to provide it. Those who have congratulated you on your "scholarship" have done so simply because they don't know what evidence you have used either, but your biases line up with their biases, so it sure sounds good. Thus, you play to the crowd. Whatever. Such is your right, but it hardly qualifies as "teaching" anyone anything.

Yeah. This is probably true. Fortunately, I'm too modest to brag.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

Real simple question penatis. Was Hitler a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word (IOW, besides him saying that he was in public). You have been thrashed on the other thread on this point, and I really would like to know if you cling to your faith or not.

Nomad wants to know what this has to do with this thread, or with the question whether Hitler was a Christian or not. And if you really DO want to go there penatis, start the thread. When we are done, I will want to know if ANY of the sceptics here actually believe that Hitler was a Christian.

After reading this passage, do you actually believe that this scholar, or any other serious scholar on Hitler actually came to the conclusion that Hitler was a Christian? I certainly have never encountered one yet.

Based on this statement, answer clearly:

Was Adolf Hitler a Christian when he ran Nazi Germany? If the answer is yes, then we will have to start a new thread.

I have never been to a website that talked about Hitler or Stalin. In my threads on this topic I have typed out my quotes entirley from my own books, and I am here to tell you that if you want to debate this topic, go for it, but on a seperate thread.

Of course people can reasonably disagree. My question to you has been do you accept that people can be reasonable and rational and believe in the Gospel accounts? Since you call our beliefs absurd even before we begin, the prospects do not look encouraging.

You are still not quite getting my point, nor my question. Once we have examined existing evidence, and reached a conclusion based on that evidence, must we remain sceptical in order to be considered credible on this question? In other words, if we become Christians based on the evidence (or non-believers based on the evidence), can we still be considered reliable sources or not?

Still missing my point. Evidence fades over time. Witnesses die. As this evidence fades, and the witnesses die off, should our level of sceptism increase in equal proportions?

I see that now.

Neutral observers have been convinced. They are called converts.

No he hasn't. He is giving a standard disclaimer that any honest scholar in his field would offer. The evidence available in the science of textual criticism is rarely as conclusive as it is in physics or biology, for example, but that does not make the evidence we do have useless, or so weak that we cannot draw reasonable conclusions as to the reliability of the texts available to us. You have made that leap, and that is your right. But we can also reach an opposite conclusion, and even non-Christian textual critics agree on that.

First. Lots of his readers are non-Christians (like you for example). Second, are you implying that Metzger was being somehow disengenous by "relegating" the disclaimer to the notes. I certainly hope not.

Thank you. Finally.

Does "precisely" as used above equate to "perfectly"? If so, why should this be required? If not, then why is this important?

Umm... your "facts" have lead you and others to grave errors because you lack the skill or background to comprehend the science with which you are dealing. Our choice is to either accept that we have a pretty good idea what the original texts look like or we don't, and in the view of the great majority of scholars, we do believe the autographs look pretty much like what we have today. Believing what the authors said is another question of course, but we can pretty much agree that the texts we have are not seriously corrupted.

And when we look at the works of Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle and the like, the amount of extant MSS is even skimpier. Yet we believe we have good copies of all these works. The Bible is singled out as being unknowable, largely because of an a priori bias against it.

And the closest we can get to Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Virgil and other ancient authors is even later.

This is among the most curious tangents you have charged off on Ron. Are you feeling alright? Perhaps the debate has gotten to you emotionally, and you require a break.

And this means that serious inquiry into the subject is pointless? If so, why?

These are not converts. A convert by definition comes from another religious background, or from a sceptical one. People raised in the faith are not converts unless they fall away for a time first (kind of like the prodigal son).

On that basis, I think we can all say we do not believe in the absurd. The fact that you want to pick out the beliefs of the theist and try to lump them under such a definition is pretty biased on your part.

People convert for a good number of reasons. The one you list above is certainly not one of them, but I doubt after this many days and pages of discussion you are not really interested in what our evidence and reasons would be.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 15, 2001).]

Why the people on these boards reading this thread of course. After all, I have assumed that you did not think you have been talking just to me, no matter how flattering that might be to me personally.

All doctrinal beliefs, so fair enough.

Time to stop. You have no evidence at all that Mark considered his gospel to be the only story of Jesus' life. Don't read into the motivations of an author unless you get to ask him. So as you already know, I am going to slap you for advancing several arguments from silence, then address anything else you may have added to your idiosyncratic understanding of the concept of a contradiction.

Point one of course is that this is a big old argument from silence. You have no idea why Mark didn't include a birth narrative, and offer pure 100% speculation on your part. Second, you clearly do not know how to read Greek, since it is not established that Jesus had any brothers at all. The Greek for brothers is identical to the Greek for brethren and cousins (that's why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that Mary was a virgin her entire life you know).

Yes, you are describing the Last Supper that formed the basis of the Eucharist. We first learn of this in Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11), and scholars agree that the tradition that Paul is talking about is much older than this letter, dating back to the beginnings of the Church.

Of course it does. While your views are interesting, they are hardly accurate (well perhaps to you, but I already expected that much).

Poor penatis. Please tell us what you are talking about here. I love to listen to the pagan parallels theories as much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory. Let's see what you've got.

Most likely true, up to the "no resurrection" part. Again, we have Paul covering this off in 1 Corinthians 15, and again we know that this tradition predates Paul to probably no later than 2 or 3 years after Jesus' death. Even the Jesus Seminar concedes this much. Please try not to treat Mark as if he existed or wrote in some kind of a vacuum. Real contradictions must actually contradict other parts of the Bible, not just be silent on a point.

True, but hardly consequential. Again we have had Paul and the other apostles talking about this to other Christians since the resurrection itself. No one I am aware of disputes this fact (well, except the Jesus myth crowd. I do hope you are not one of those, but if you are, this should prove interesting).

Same as 4 above.

I would be interested in your dating of Mark on this question. Were any of Jesus' followers still alive when Mark wrote this Gospel?

As to your allusion to the Transfiguration, that did take place, and Mark talks about it in quite clear detail (as did Matthew and Luke BTW).

Well, Jesus had to die to atone for our sins, but Christians already knew this. Also, no one except the Father knows the date of the Second Coming, so we should be pretty thankful that it hasn't happened yet I would say.

Well, we already know that you are no more neutral here than I am, and since you think an argument from silence is actually important, I have noticed that you have not mentioned that you have a father or a mother anywhere on these boards. I can only conclude that you do not actually have either, since this silence on this question is clearly quite astonishing and incredible.

I do hope you do not require an actual definition of the word contradiction penatis. Just try to keep in mind that arguments from silence don't produce them (unless you know the mind and motives of the author of course). Did you know Mark per chance?

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Penatis, I have enjoyed debating with you. It has pushed me even more into my studies.

Ish, I have enjoyed our discussion, as well.

Ish:At one point you stated that I should go back and study the NT MSS... That felt like an ad hominem for the benefit of others.

I wasn't sure what you had studied. But, you implied that I didn't necessarily know what the 108 NT papyrus fragments contained. (You had asked me where I had gotten my information. I told you; so once you had a chance to see the 108 fragments described, it should have been obvious that I knew what each one contained.) I apologize for the way I came across.


Ish: However, I'm sure my posts were sprinkled with a little of that too. The "~90" was an error of haste. I assure you that I am also quite well versed...

Great. It was the "~90" that made me think you had not checked my source carefully. I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

Ish: It does "miff" me almost to the point of name-calling however, when you insist on labeling yourself as "unbiased" and "neutral". I think any true scholar would admit his biases.

Thanks for including me within the same paragraph as "true scholars." I am just kidding!!!!
You and I are well aware of my modest qualifications. All of us have our prejudices, but that should not keep us from attempting to be neutral. I think there is a degree of neutrality in the way I approach all literature.

Ish: One other thing, you constantly sprinkle your posts with statements about the 300,000 errors, corrections, etc. in the NT MSS. I just want to add the most of those "errors" are changes in the structure of a word or a shift of a word to another of a similar nature.

Granted. I am just making the point that the NT is precisely like every other collection of books that was inspired, written, collected, and canonized by human beings. Also, it should be noted that there are significant variant readings and obscurities that make it impossible for textual critics to agree which reconstructed text best represents a hypothetical original.

Ish: Even with the "major" lack of evidence for the longer ending of Mark, the text still leaves the tomb empty. That has to be accounted for, not to mention the numbers MSSs that mention "a resurrection".

Precisely what is an empty tomb supposed to confirm? Also, how can readers be certain that the story is historically accurate?

Ish: Most of the word or phrase changing errors, I don't see as a major problem. If you will, for my research as well as others, would you mind presenting some of the errors that you find particularly damaging?

I have presented examples of major problems with the text and transmission of the NT. I honestly think you would not find ANYTHING a major problem, but that is just my opinion.

Ish: I have to say that I disagree with many of your views and especially your conclusions, penatis.

I am not at all surprised that you and I disagree. You are a Christian and I am not.

Ish: I definitely do think they come with their own set of biased pressuppositions.

Please tell me one thing: If I approach all religious works in precisely the same way, how is that bias? I think you will have to admit that you do not approach the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon the same way you approach the NT. So, who is more biased, you or me?

Ish: Regardless, I want to thank you for a true scholarly debate which I don't get very often here.

And, I thank you. I would be willing to discuss any aspect of the NT, especially those issues that could be addressed by using the NT text itself.

Ish: Anyway, I want so bad to go back over your posts because I believe I have many more valid points. However, time just does not permit it.

I will discuss ANY NT issue ANYTIME. That is how I learn new things.

Ish: How do you guys have the time for this anyway??

That is a problem for all of us. I work full time, and I presume all posters do the same.

Ron