Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 03-25-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Have a good weekend, Judge.

Before you go .. I do wonder if you had noticed (I just learned today) that we have to do CTC .. Carrier Textual Criticism .. on his "Take the 5th" Edition of the Nativity.

Apparently one version was 'smoothed' .. while the earlier version had the Megillath Ta’anith unclarity and dubious case sans detail or footnote (later seen as a blunder when we found more coherent references) that you picked up. The scribes had not destroyed the errant copy. Sometimes the archives and google and other copyists help us to restore a Carrier palpimpsest.

More seriously, it is strange that an argument would be given as significant in his behalf and then we find it simply expunged completely from the discussion .. apparently Richard Carrier found that the argument works the other way and rather than try to deal with the new reality forthrightly the aspiring skeptic professional apologist historian decided that the scissors was the better path than candor.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by praxeus : March 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM.

JW:
Well, as my old Jewish boss used to say (and he said it a lot), "Joe. sometimes if you wait long enough, problems really do go away!" Sounds like your previous Praxanoy's Complaint was primarily Carrier's supposed scholarship rather than evidence for 2 BCE.

Now your tact seems to be preference for "Luke" over Josephus (by the way, we could have really used you during the last America's Cup against the Kiwis) rather than a claim of direct support from Josephus for 2 BCE. Same question for you as Judge, what do you now think is the best direct evidence from Josephus for 2 BCE?

Your post above regarding Carrier's supposed Editing tactics is especially amusing considering you Edited your critique without stated reason or number of Edition.

Joseph

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60

JoeWallack · 03-25-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

DEFINITELY CHECK OUT: Another discussion about Herod's death and the eclipse.

JW:
Sounds like your primary evidence for a date of 2 BCE is a reference rather than an argument. Being unable/unwilling to summarize any related argument here suggests that it is difficult for you to do so. Until you do I can't help being reminded of Michael Palin walking into John Cleese's office looking for an argument.

Joseph

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

Johann_Kaspar · 03-25-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Johann, why you write so falsely. Many of us know the backdrop of this.

After two emissaries Herod wiggled out of the tough jam he was in. Whether our reports are a bit tainted by the winners, who knows. Either way Herod got off the heavy hook. So any oppressive measures that Rome had instituted could have easily been released or suspended till later times.

Which is exactly the starting point for considering the full historicity picture, including Luke.

You at least are aware that for some years Herod was under heavy pressure, he was no longer a "friend of Caesar", the original claims of being a "favorite" were totally false.

There is no indication that Augustus then became lovey-dovey with Herod. Even after those most difficult years, when Rome looked to be moving in against their subject client-prince, Herod had more problems right and left - murders, blood, appeals to Rome and more blood.

You should try to be fully honest about those heavy years and not claim that Herod was some time of wonderful "favortite" of Augustus. Nonsense. At this point that is known to be a total falsehood, even if earlier it was ignorance.

The next step is to properly complement the historical accounts. That is fairly easy to do although the stumblingblock is the blindnesses about Luke's excellent historicity.

(Ironically, Carrier did not have that problem, and tried a whole different approach. He failed miserably but it was an interesting effort.)

So that is why I say the next step is to revisit the general Luke historicity.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

One stupid claim after another. That is too funny!

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Book XVI

The conclusion was this, that Sylleus was condemned to die, and that Caesar was reconciled to Herod, and owned his repentance for what severe things he had written to him, occasioned by calumny, insomuch that he told Sylleus, that he had compelled him, by his lying account of things, to be guilty of ingratitude against a man that was his friend. At the last all came to this, Sylleus was sent away to answer Herod's suit, and to repay the debt that he owed, and after that to be punished [with death]. But still Caesar was offended with Aretas, that he had taken upon himself the government, without his consent first obtained, for he had determined to bestow Arabia upon Herod; but that the letters he had sent hindered him from so doing; for Olympus and Volumnius, perceiving that Caesar was now become favorable to Herod, thought fit immediately to deliver him the letters they were commanded by Herod to give him concerning his sons. When Caesar had read them, he thought it would not be proper to add another government to him, now he was old, and in an ill state with relation to his sons, so he admitted Aretas's ambassadors; and after he had just reproved him for his rashness, in not tarrying till he received the kingdom from him, he accepted of his presents, and confirmed him in his government.

CHAPTER 11.

HOW HEROD, BY PERMISSION FROM CAESAR ACCUSED HIS SONS BEFORE AN ASSEMBLY OF JUDGES AT BERYTUS ; AND WHAT TERO SUFFERED FOR USING A BOUNDLESS AND MILITARY LIBERTY OF SPEECH. CONCERNING ALSO THE DEATH OF THE YOUNG MEN AND THEIR BURIAL AT ALEXANDRIUM.

1. SO Caesar was now reconciled to Herod, and wrote thus to him: That he was grieved for him on account of his sons; and that in case they had been guilty of any profane and insolent crimes against him, it would behoove him to punish them as parricides, for which he gave him power accordingly; but if they had only contrived to fly away, he would have him give them an admonition, and not proceed to extremity with them.

:huh:

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Johann_Kaspar · 03-25-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

So that is why I say the next step is to revisit the general Luke historicity.

One example of Lk "historicity":

Quote:

Lk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Lk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

How is that the holy ghost had to come a second time

Once was not enough

judge · 03-25-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I guess that would be me in this case.

spin

No not yet. You may be able to come up with an explanation that explains all the evidence, but as yet you have not set one down.

I would like to be open enough to accept one if you did.

One would need to set down a chrnology including all the evidence relating to Herod, the eclipse, Matthias the scrolls of fasting etc...

You have not done this yet. You have picked at pieces here and there.

If you don't have an alternative, let alone a better one then it is still a one horse race.

judge · 03-25-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Repeat after me:

There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the

Well there is some relationship in that Matthias had a term as priest of 9 or ten months and he was stood down as a result of events just prior to the eclipse.
So the one day replacement can be located as in the preceding months to the "sacking".

spin · 03-25-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

No not yet. You may be able to come up with an explanation that explains all the evidence, but as yet you have not set one down.

Regarding what exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I would like to be open enough to accept one if you did.

One would need to set down a chrnology including all the evidence relating to Herod, the eclipse, Matthias the scrolls of fasting etc...

What is the relevance of the eclipse? What is the relevance of Matthias or the fast? You are assuming conclusion for arguments you've never made. In fact, I've already dealt with them, so until you can introduce new evidence -- or any evidence for that matter --, I guess there is still no real need to say anything more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

You have not done this yet.

Perhaps the separation of the eclipse from the fast stuff doesn't mean much to you, but the argument that is based on the connection disappears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If you don't have an alternative, let alone a better one then it is still a one horse race.

An alternative to what? When are you going to realise your horse is down at the first hurdle?

You on the other hand are totally unable to face the reality of the census. You avoid it until you should be embarrassed. Yes, there is nothing you can do about it. The apologists you usually depend on have tried all the stale tricks. In the end, we are left with Quirinius coming to Judea in 6 CE to resolve issues relating to the absorption of Judea directly into the Roman administrative system and Luke wrongly relating this to the birth of its protagonist -- not the only error by the writer, so what's the problem accepting this one?

As you have nothing meaningful to say about Quirinius, then all the rest of the quibbling you use to prop your hopes up with is irrelevant, because your position has been falsified already.

Do you want to consider the error involved in Augustus registering the whole world, then relating it to Joseph going to Bethlehem? After all Augustus's three universal censuses were only with regard to Roman citizens.

Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8:
"In my fifth consulship [29 B.C.], I increased the number of patricians by order of the People and the Senate. Three times I revised the Roll of Senators [29/28, 18, 13]. And in my sixth consulship [28 B.C.], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I conducted a census of the People. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-two years; at this lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were recorded. Then a second time, acting alone, by virtue of the consular power, I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of C. Censorinus and C. Asinius [8 B.C.]; at this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were recorded. And a third time I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [A.D. 14] by virtue of the consular power and with my son Tiberius as my colleague; at this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were recorded . . . . "

spin

Steven Avery · 03-25-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Your post above regarding Carrier's supposed Editing tactics is especially amusing considering you Edited your critique without stated reason or number of Edition.

Hi Joe,

I think you are somehow trying to refer to this post.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...17#post4285917
Richard Carrier and the Megillath Ta’anith

Why not help us with something substantive. The errancywiki link that is your world has Carrier trying to use the Jewish Scroll of Fasting as positive evidence for his view.

We saw that this is a very difficult position. That the Jewish Scroll of Fasting appears to be evidence against his general view, rather than for. Two websites were linked that give some detailed discussion, Carrier only gave a driveby.

Now the whole thing has apparerently just vanished.

(btw.. I believe at one time the larger edition had the Jewish Scroll of Fasting materail as well.. as I was carefully noting the lack of footnotes and references to support the view)

The actual Nativity article (same edition, supposedly) today has no reference to the Jewish Scroll of Fasting.

Can you help explain this 1984 'scholarship' of aspiring professional historian Richard Carrier ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Oh, if the real mods think that every little spelling correction and line spacing and nice color tweak (and addition like this) is supposed to have some careful explanation (even more especially when nobody has even posted below re: the post) they are welcome to PM me with the forum views and discussions. Without that, one will have a nice

at Joe's comment as a cute attempt to totally avoid discussing Winston Carrier Smith's "Jewish Scroll of Fasting" vanishing undocumented misreference.

Steven Avery · 03-25-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

One stupid claim after another. That is too funny!

First of all, you have simply demonstrated that there was a period of time that Herod was completely unfavorable to Augustus. By fast-forwarding to the second case-pleading attempt. Why you refuse to simply acknowledge this truth of severe animiosity for that period is a wonderment to behold.

One can of course wonder whether Herod would lie (shocked, shocked) and whether one likely main source, Nicolaus, would be so tainted and biased in his account that it would be hard to unravel truth and error.

However we both agree that there was a degree of restoration after a period where Rome was ready .. likely .. to fully move in on the subject Herod. And that fits well my understanding. A very angry time, a time where Herod was dirt .. followed by a degree of reconciliation.

Now notice that as soon as your vaunted reconciliation is given above Herod is noted as essentially a ruthless murderer ...

"guilty of so great a crime in his older age ... commotion of mind ..commits a wicked action.. a heavy crime.. the action of a murderous mind.. the barbarity of the man ... slaughter also"

Does this really sound like a man who was remaining in wonderful favor ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery · 03-25-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

One example of Lk "historicity": How is that the holy ghost had to come a second time. Once was not enough.

Maybe you can express your confusion. Do you really have a difficulty with Luke 1 and 3 there ?

Or perhaps you want to take the view that the supernatural aspects of the life of Jesus Christ will not allow you to discuss seriously the careful and accurate historicity of Luke and other NT writers (e.g. the recent John 5 pool of Bethesda discussion). For these purposes I would prefer to keep our focus on Luke and really on historicity issues, as I mentioned above. Can you join me in that endeavor ?

Spiritual issues are fine side-issues but at least try to be sensible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.