Ted Hoffman

Vork,
Thats impressive work. The parallels are really striking. Share with us when you are done.

Goodacre responded. He said he doesn't know of any editorial fatigue outside the NT.

Vorkosigan

more are up

hmm....

Rick Sumner

Perhaps we should see if we can't track down some known plagiarisms, and see what we come up with?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

As far as I can find, the only critiques of Goodacres' "editorial fatigue" are either restricted to specific examples and not the concept, itself, or are actually criticisms of the assumption of Markan priority.

(Tangent: The most entertaining site I've found, IMO, has to be The Talmud of Jmmanuel. The warning on the front page says it all:

"Scholars beware: the UFO-biblical connections are real" )

I think I've read enough that my initial concern has been eliminated though I'll still poke around the "plagiarism" stuff for any non-biblical evidence of the phenomenon.

I've also decided I need to read his book against Q. You guys aren't just shills for book publishers, right?

the_cave

Vork--I think the problem is that noting the parallels between OT events and Gospel events really brings one to "Gospel agnosticism"--that is, one must suspend one's assumptions about whether or not it happened.

I think the problem is, from there you argue that "We have reason to believe this incident is untrue, and no reason to believe it is true." However, Vinnie and Rick might grant you the first clause, but not the second. You argue that the mere assertion of a historical claim is insufficient evidence for the event, whereas Vinnie and Rick feel that it is. As I see it, anyway.

I have to admit I can't decide between your collective positions on that. However, I think Rick at least has chosen the agnostic position, which is the best he can do unless he decides that yes, indeed, the gospel authors could retell OT events without anyone realizing it, or else not caring.

Furthering the discussion would probably require a larger discussion on what it was like to read religious narratives in first-century Palestine.

Vorkosigan

Right, that is close to my own position, Jesus agnosticism.

Rick refused to grant the second clause was true -- but also failed to provide any evidence or argument that might constitute a reason for thinking that something historical underlies the Temple Ruckus. I can't think of any offhand.

Thanks for the open mind! Well, there is no need for agnosticism on this point. The Temple Ruckus isn't in any early source, the details come from the OT, and the plot comes from the OT. If only one level was dependent on a literary source, one might say that agnosticism was warranted. But here every level is dependent on literary sources. Agnosticism is not warranted.

Why restrict it only to then? And what reason would you give for Mark being written somewhere in Palestine?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

It is simply fallacious to go form 'paralleled in the OT' ---> 'no historical core'. Its as fallacious as saying, its multiply attested ---> its historical.

Vork over-extended his Jesus agnosticism in his very first post. He overstepe the evidence and ended in non-sequitur land.

That I or Rick cannot demonstrate historicty does not mean an advent did not happen. It simply means we cannot demonstrate it. Its why some things are deemed non-liquet.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

I read Kloppenborgs review of it. There are interesting arguments but thats just about it.

When I asked him about the editorial fatigue in films, he said he meant the 'errors in continuities' in films. He did not provide any examples.

IMO, even not withstanding examples outside the NT, editorial fatigue seems to explain the presence of editorial seams in hypertexts (either from literary borrowing/midrash/peshar) and of course, the corresponding hypotext must be present and the inconsistency must be absent in it.

About Talmud of JManuel, I have corresponded with Jim Deardoff severally when I was investigating the UFO phenomena. Before that, I believed in zero probability of the existence of UFOs. Now, I am at 50%. The Mexico incident (was it in March?) has not been fully explained - some tried to explain it as ball lightning but that simply could not hold. Unanswered questions abound like how they manage to circumvent sonic boom, why only selected people see these UFOs, we discussed plausible deniability and so on and so forth. The thread Who is the final authority on ET Life? has our correspondence, the knee-jerk reactions and the issues from skeptical and scientific viewpoints, from money-making scams to crackpottery.

Check one of his (Meier) bold photos below and others in the link below it. I have never found anyone who has provided a veritable explanation about how he could have faked the photos. If you have, let me know. People who claimed that he used a model and young trees to fake the photos with the beamships hovering around trees got disconfirming responses from botanists.
So, on the whole UFO issue, I pass non-liquet.

He makes very interesting arguments against 2SH and IIRC, he argues for priority of Matthew. I was to undertake to study his work but it required too much time as its quite a lot. Of course the Jesus in India stories evoke knee-jerk dismissals from all of us (he got banned from XTalk). But there you are.

Non-liquet.


Billy Meier Photos

Ted Hoffman

That will be all thank you.

Ted Hoffman

I think this is a separate issue and is further adrift. Did the readers believe that Lazarus' daughter was raised from death? Hell yes. Does that have any bearing on the veracity of the event? No.
Carrier's article may be relevant to your comment. Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: a look into the world of the gospels