Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 09-13-2011, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does anyone else think this is a problem?

I don't think it's a problem to treat something as a fact if (a) the authorities in the relevant disciplines agree it's a fact and (b) there is no ground for suspicion that the authorities have made a mistake.

That said, when we're confronting apologists, it might be a tactical mistake to enlist an argument from silence when attempting to undermine any variant of inerrantism.

JoeWallack · 09-13-2011, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

A writer living in the year 2011 creating a fictional account of events occurring in the previous century, circa 1900-1940, presumably would have to be careful to avoid including any anachronisms. For example, if the writer included in the account that any characters had access to laptops, the writings could be easily discredited. Therefore, the writers of the synoptic gospels may’ve taken precautions to avoid including any anachronisms in their writings. However, the temptation to include information known by the synoptic authors, then backdated into their writings, may’ve been too great. For example, the account of the destruction of Jewish temple (in the form of a prophetic utterance) was included in the gospels. Are there other examples of anachronisms and/or backdated prophecies in the synoptic gospels?

JW:
Here's the post you are looking for:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=115

Quote:

Anachronisms:

1) Use of Josephus

...

2) Parable of the Wicked Husandmen

...

3) Synagogues in Galilee

...

4) Use of "Rabbi" as a title:

...

5) Use of linen shrouds:

...

6. The Rolling Stone:

...

7) Ritual Hand Washing:

...

8) Synagogue Beatings:

...

9) Prediction of Temple destruction:

...

10) Pharisees in Galilee:

...

Regarding the anachronisms, some are better placed in 1st century and some are better placed 2nd century, which together, means that they support 2nd century. Also remember the key as to a scenario for authorship. Going with the irony that the destruction of the Temple is destroying the historicity of the Christian Bible by demonstrating anachronisms, the f-a-r-t-h-e-r one is from c. 70 the more likely the anachronism as there is gradually loss of memory and evidence for the pre-70 setting. For those who need points sharply explained = A mature author writing shortly after 70 CE would remember the setting pre-70 and not have the anachronisms. Remember this point when considering the cumulative anachronisms.

Note the co-ordination than of the External and Internal evidence for 2nd century. This is also compatible with the gradual evidence from the Patristic for chronological identification of "Matthew"/"Luke" and "John" later in the 2nd century.

Thus we have it on good authority that "Mark" is likely 2nd century and a more definite conclusion that there is no quality evidence for a 1st century "Mark". Word.

You can add to it:

Quote:

Samuel Lachs points out in A Rabbinic Commentary On The New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) that the common Passover dish of Mark 14:20:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

Mark 14:20 And he said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish.

is an anachronism based on the Mishnah:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/etm/etm068.htm

Quote:

§ 3. Herbs and vegetables are then to be brought: the lettuce is to be immersed, and part eaten thereof, until the eating of the unleavened-bread; then ‏מצה‎, or unleavened cakes, are to be placed before him, as also lettuce, ‏חרוסת‎ 1 and two kinds of cooked food, although the ‏חרוסת‎ is not strictly obligatory; but R. Eleazar bar Zadok says it is obligatory. During the existence of the Holy Temple, the paschal sacrifice was then also placed before him.

While the Temple existed than, everything was to be placed before an individual with the implication that there would be no common dish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo · 09-13-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hershel Shanks is a lawyer who publishes Biblical Archaeology Review. I think he is stretching things to the limit when he lists some variant of rav as a "possibility."

I think the confusion here is around 'rabbi' as a form of address vs a specific title. Geza Vermes states that 'rabbi' was in general usage in Aramaic as a form address in Jesus' time, i.e. before it became an accepted formal title as it appears in the Mishnah. He cites (Jesus the Jew, p. 246i) John 13:13, 'You call me teacher and lord', as an exhibit of a common Aramaic expression 'rabbi u-mari' ('my master, my lord').

Also I do not see anything in E.P. Sanders' 'Jesus and Judaism' to indicate that that the appelation 'rabbi' might be anachronistic and he even describes as one of his starting points, the view he takes is that 'Pharisees', 'haberim', and 'Rabbis' are more or less equivalent terms in the NT texts (p.176).

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 09-13-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does anyone else think this is a problem?

I don't think it's a problem to treat something as a fact if (a) the authorities in the relevant disciplines agree it's a fact and (b) there is no ground for suspicion that the authorities have made a mistake.....

Well, such a view is extremely problematic since all authorities or experts do RARELY agree on facts.

In Court trials it is seen that experts or authorities in the Law may use the very same data or evidence and produce OPPOSING opinions.

Something should be treated as facts when there is ACTUAL supporting evidence.

For example, it may be that all "authorities" or experts AGREED or BELIEVED at some time that the earth was FLAT and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Who could have suspected that it was NOT facts when the earth appears to be flat and the sun appears to revolve around the earth?

One should be SUSPECT of authorities that AGREE on any matter WITHOUT supporting evidence.

JoeWallack · 09-13-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

A writer living in the year 2011 creating a fictional account of events occurring in the previous century, circa 1900-1940, presumably would have to be careful to avoid including any anachronisms. For example, if the writer included in the account that any characters had access to laptops, the writings could be easily discredited. Therefore, the writers of the synoptic gospels may’ve taken precautions to avoid including any anachronisms in their writings. However, the temptation to include information known by the synoptic authors, then backdated into their writings, may’ve been too great. For example, the account of the destruction of Jewish temple (in the form of a prophetic utterance) was included in the gospels. Are there other examples of anachronisms and/or backdated prophecies in the synoptic gospels?

JW:
Actually the entire Gospel (the original "Mark" and its successors) is anachronistic from a Scope (tone) standpoint. The purpose of the Teaching & Healing Ministry in "Mark" is to set the Eucharist Table for the Passion Ministry, which per "Mark" is the important one. Having someone write this in their lifetime or communicate it to disciples to write about would either be unknown in literature or rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel. "Mark" is an interpretation, after the supposed facts, about what was supposedly important about Jesus.

Regarding the lengthy list of anachronisms I provided I suspect the author either did it intentionally or at least didn't care, because the primary objective is to make the story connect to the author's audience and not Jesus'.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

judge · 09-13-2011, 04:32 PM

Ok , so at the moment we have one, just one, anachronism in the synoptic gospels. The destruction of the temple.
Aren't there any more? (Joe Wallacks list doesn't provide anything of real substance)

judge · 09-13-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does anyone else think this is a problem?

I don't think it's a problem to treat something as a fact if (a) the authorities in the relevant disciplines agree it's a fact and (b) there is no ground for suspicion that the authorities have made a mistake.

That said, when we're confronting apologists, it might be a tactical mistake to enlist an argument from silence when attempting to undermine any variant of inerrantism.

A tactical fucking mistake? Is that all it is?

Should we be rationalist merely because there are apologists that need to be countered or because rationlism is something we believe in?

Are we supposed to only use sound methodolgy when countering apologists and abandon it at other times?

aa5874 · 09-13-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Ok , so at the moment we have one, just one, anachronism in the synoptic gospels. The destruction of the temple.
Aren't there any more? (Joe Wallacks list doesn't provide anything of real substance)

Only ONE anachronism is NEEDED.

Once it is accepted that the Fall of the Jewish Temple was already known to the authors of the Synoptics then it can be understood why ONLY one so-called Prediction of Jesus did NOT FAIL.

And further, it can now be deduced that the Synoptics were NOT really about a prophet called Jesus Christ. It was the authors of the Jesus stories who were the FALSE prophets.

judge · 09-13-2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Only ONE anachronism is NEEDED.

Once it is accepted that the Fall of the Jewish Temple was already known to the authors of the Synoptics then it can be understood why ONLY one so-called Prediction of Jesus did NOT FAIL.

.

No argument there, but this one anachronism can't place the origin of the gospels in the 2nd centruy, merely after 70 AD (discounting that as a later addition of course)

aa5874 · 09-13-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Only ONE anachronism is NEEDED.

Once it is accepted that the Fall of the Jewish Temple was already known to the authors of the Synoptics then it can be understood why ONLY one so-called Prediction of Jesus did NOT FAIL.

.

No argument there, but this one anachronism can't place the origin of the gospels in the 2nd centruy, merely after 70 AD (discounting that as a later addition of course)

Well, that ONE anachronism has DESTROYED the chronology of the Jesus story of the ENTIRE NT.

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

09-13-2011, 04:32 PM	#26
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	Ok , so at the moment we have one, just one, anachronism in the synoptic gospels. The destruction of the temple. Aren't there any more? (Joe Wallacks list doesn't provide anything of real substance)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.