Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 03-12-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3

I don't know what Carrier thinks, but I would dismiss this as a part of a later interpolation.

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto, you are more familiar with Richard Carrier's work than I am. I didn't fathom that Carrier would dismiss each of those passages as merely visions and stylized creeds.

If you didn't fathom this, you are too unfamiliar with the field to criticize anyone. You have no business spewing out the insults that you do.

Quote:

Maybe you can give me an example passage in any of the writings of Paul about any topic besides Jesus that is definitely not a "vision" or a "stylized creed."

They are few and far between, but Paul's mentions of Peter would qualify. (Whether they are true is another matter.)

Yeah, I think you are right. I don't know exactly what Richard Carrier means by "visions" or "stylized creeds," and I don't know if he thinks such sayings (or more like a consistent general style of Paul) would mean that the seemingly historical physical character qualities of Paul's Jesus are somehow discounted as irrelevant to the question of Paul's attestation to the historical Jesus. Does Carrier, like so many mythicists, believe that such passages are merely spiritual or metaphorical?

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

"who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3

I don't know what Carrier thinks, but I would dismiss this as a part of a later interpolation.

Yeah, you can dismiss every such passage as interpolation. The problem would be that such proposals seem to be "ad hoc," meaning that they don't fit the evidence such that the proposal would have occurred to anyone if it were not needed for a certain conclusion.

hjalti · 03-12-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I don't know what Carrier thinks, but I would dismiss this as a part of a later interpolation.

Yeah, you can dismiss every such passage as interpolation. The problem would be that such proposals seem to be "ad hoc," meaning that they don't fit the evidence such that the proposal would have occurred to anyone if it were not needed for a certain conclusion.

I can see why one would feel that way if one would just respond to all these verses as "It's an interpolation!", but I think there are good reasons for concluding that Rom 1:3 is a part of an interpolation.

Toto · 03-12-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you didn't fathom this, you are too unfamiliar with the field to criticize anyone. You have no business spewing out the insults that you do.

...

Yeah, I think you are right.

Right about the above?

I find it disturbing that you drop by during school holidays and insult scholars based on your complete misconception of what they stand for, based on your completely distorted view of the issues. There is quite enough misinformation on the internet. If you are going to be dogmatic about what you believe, at least learn something about the subject matter first.

Quote:

I don't know exactly what Richard Carrier means by "visions" or "stylized creeds," and I don't know if he thinks such sayings (or more like a consistent general style of Paul) would mean that the seemingly historical physical character qualities of Paul's Jesus are somehow discounted as irrelevant to the question of Paul's attestation to the historical Jesus. Does Carrier, like so many mythicists, believe that such passages are merely spiritual or metaphorical?

Visions ==> Paul saw Jesus in a vision.

"Stylized creeds" ==> Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures and decided that the Savior had to be born of a woman, of the line of David, etc. When Paul repeats these creeds, he is not reciting historical information.

I don't know how Carrier deals with Paul, but in general, as a trained historian, he does not automatically credit copies of ancient documents as historical sources.

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, you can dismiss every such passage as interpolation. The problem would be that such proposals seem to be "ad hoc," meaning that they don't fit the evidence such that the proposal would have occurred to anyone if it were not needed for a certain conclusion.

I can see why one would feel that way if one would just respond to all these verses as "It's an interpolation!", but I think there are good reasons for concluding that Rom 1:3 is a part of an interpolation.

OK, yeah, I would say that having a good reason for such claims is what is needed, and that is how a theory fits the evidence the best. If there is no good reason to accept the interpolation claim except for the conclusion that requires Paul thinking of Jesus as merely spiritual or whatever, then there is a problem. A pretty good test of whether such an interpolation claim is reasonable or merely ad hoc is to find out if other critical scholars who don't hold the position of Paul having a merely-spiritual-Jesus model agree with the interpolation claim.

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, I think you are right.

Right about the above?

I find it disturbing that you drop by during school holidays and insult scholars based on your complete misconception of what they stand for, based on your completely distorted view of the issues. There is quite enough misinformation on the internet. If you are going to be dogmatic about what you believe, at least learn something about the subject matter first.

Quote:

I don't know exactly what Richard Carrier means by "visions" or "stylized creeds," and I don't know if he thinks such sayings (or more like a consistent general style of Paul) would mean that the seemingly historical physical character qualities of Paul's Jesus are somehow discounted as irrelevant to the question of Paul's attestation to the historical Jesus. Does Carrier, like so many mythicists, believe that such passages are merely spiritual or metaphorical?

Visions ==> Paul saw Jesus in a vision.

"Stylized creeds" ==> Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures and decided that the Savior had to be born of a woman, of the line of David, etc. When Paul repeats these creeds, he is not reciting historical information.

I don't know how Carrier deals with Paul, but in general, as a trained historian, he does not automatically credit copies of ancient documents as historical sources.

OK, thanks for the explanation. I think I am done with you for now. It seems to be getting too personal.

hjalti · 03-12-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

OK, yeah, I would say that having a good reason for such claims is what is needed, and that is how a theory fits the evidence the best. If there is no good reason to accept the interpolation claim except for the conclusion that requires Paul thinking of Jesus as merely spiritual or whatever, then there is a problem. A pretty good test of whether such an interpolation claim is reasonable or merely ad hoc is to find out if other critical scholars who don't hold the position of Paul having a merely-spiritual-Jesus model agree with the interpolation claim.

Or better yet: Just examine the arguments yourself!

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

OK, yeah, I would say that having a good reason for such claims is what is needed, and that is how a theory fits the evidence the best. If there is no good reason to accept the interpolation claim except for the conclusion that requires Paul thinking of Jesus as merely spiritual or whatever, then there is a problem. A pretty good test of whether such an interpolation claim is reasonable or merely ad hoc is to find out if other critical scholars who don't hold the position of Paul having a merely-spiritual-Jesus model agree with the interpolation claim.

Or better yet: Just examine the arguments yourself!

You got that right.

Chaucer · 03-14-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I find it disturbing that you drop by during school holidays

Is this kind of personal twitting necessary?

Sincerely,

Chaucer

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.