Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 10-03-2003, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Sumner
Having finally gotten a chance to almost catch-up on my reading, I had occasion to finish the article Peter had written for the JHC on the empty tomb. Persuasive and well-written though it was, the concluding paragraphs, at the risk of sounding blunt, claim substantially more proof than has been provided. In particular, Peter writes:

The problem with this is the inherent premise that the physical resurrection is rooted in the empty tomb narratives. But then we're left the question of why anyone made up the empty tomb narrative in the first place?

The best explanation, it seems to me, is that the empty tomb narrative serves as an apologetic: "Yes, he really rose from the dead, even his tomb was empty." That being the case, the tomb is based on the belief in a physical resurrection, which means that the belief in physical resurrection was based on something else.

Let me draw a parallel. I have no idea where my grandmother's grave is, except that it's in Thunder Bay, Ontario. I've never been to Thunder Bay, and probably couldn't find it with a map and a trail of breadcrumbs. But if my grandmother appeared to me in the flesh tomorrow, I would be obligated to conclude that she had physically resurrected. Retelling the story might lead future narrators to recount an empty tomb in Thunder Bay. Then it might be established that the tomb story they tell is entirely fictitious, that she was buried in an unmarked grave in the forest, and nobody knows where it is. But here lies the rub: establishing their tomb story as fiction in no way negates the initial experience.

This is not to say that anyone rose from the dead (nor, for that matter, that they didn't--it's really not pertinent to the caveat being raised). What it is to say is that establishing that early Christians 1) Had no idea where Jesus' body lay and 2) Subsequently fabricated stories about it does not necessarily indicate that the physical resurrection is a fiction.

If there was no missing body, then there was no resurrection, this is unequivocably true. But if the empty tomb narratives are fictions, all we can safely conclude based on that premise is that the empty tomb narratives are fictions.

Regards,
Rick

This is a problem with a lot of Jesus research. There is always more than one explanation for everything--always more than one possible line of development---always more than one possible meanng...ad nausea.

Its inference and guesswork. Can't blame the apologists when "historians" do the same.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller · 10-03-2003, 07:30 AM

Vinnie wrote:
This is a problem with a lot of Jesus research. There is always more than one explanation for everything--always more than one possible line of development---always more than one possible meanng...ad nausea.
Its inference and guesswork. Can't blame the apologists when "historians" do the same.

You are right Vinnie. Too many options at each turn. You take the wrong turn and you are out in the wilds. Soon you'll be in a swamp fighting alligators. The trick is to think carefully at each crossing, and select the right turn after considering all the others. And if, even so, you go where you do not have evidence any more to guide you further, then it is time to backtrack, acknowledging you made a wrong turn.
That always been part of my methodology. Actually, the main criteria about Jesus' research should be not to go on the wrong tracks. There are thousands out there.
Best regards, Bernard

PS: I agree with Peter: the empty tomb is fiction.

Vinnie · 10-03-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Vinnie wrote:
This is a problem with a lot of Jesus research. There is always more than one explanation for everything--always more than one possible line of development---always more than one possible meanng...ad nausea.
Its inference and guesswork. Can't blame the apologists when "historians" do the same.

You are right Vinnie. Too many options at each turn. You take the wrong turn and you are out in the wilds. Soon you'll be in a swamp fighting alligators. The trick is to think carefully at each crossing, and select the right turn after considering all the others. And if, even so, you go where you do not have evidence any more to guide you further, then it is time to backtrack, acknowledging you made a wrong turn.
That always been part of my methodology. Actually, the main criteria about Jesus' research should be not to go on the wrong tracks. There are thousands out there.
Best regards, Bernard

That is a methodology I can respect. I'm glad you recognizee this problem. Take our disagreement on the nature of the Gospel of Thomas as an example. If we disagree on that we can at least agree that this difference has an impact on our entire outlook on Jesus. Thomas shakes up everything just like some formulations of Q.

The problem is that there are so many roads one has to take. Even the synoptic problem. In order to make sure you are on the right road you would have to invest probably a couple years study into this one issue. I have not done so. I've only read a few books. In reality, amatuers can never know if they are on the right road or not. And scholars, well they all disagree so this field is absolutely pointless for amatuers at this point. You have no diea if what you are reading is accurate or not and you don't have the skill, time, or level of expertise to evaluate it for yourself! In order to know anything in HJ research it has to be a lifetime committment. The problem for amatuers like myself is that the lifelong comitters disagree on everything and consensuses in HJ research are quite useless!

What if you come to the conclusion that no answer to the synoptic problem today suffices? That affects everything. If you accept Mark without Q or matthean Priority or proto Luke or duetero Mark or Boismard's complex though very explanator solution, or Price's three source hypothesis and so on. The synoptic problem is just one issue though! What about all the other issues? What about all the studies being presented that you don't have the time to read? ou may be missing a crucial piece of data you don't even know about.

That is why inventory and stratification of sources MUST lie at the bottom of any Jesus research. You may disagree with Crossan's reconstruction but this is tbe goldmine portion of his book. Stratification and inventory. Its a necessity.

But we may be missing some crucial sources which would change evrything though. How do we know?

In all honesty, I don't even see how its possible to fix precise dates for most of the canonical Gospels. I don't even see how its possible to fix a date for the Gospel of Matthew any preciser than 75-105. Personally, I find there to be a difference if Matthew is dated at 80 rather than 100. It has an impact on trying to discern trends and so forth.

But then again, if you think Ignatius' letters are a forgery (not sure how plausible this is but the mythicist here like it) you could put the lastest possible date for Matther a littler higher around say 115. But then again what if there is only one instance of Matthean redaction in Ignatius? This may be attributed to later scribal activity just as it may to it being an instance of indirect Matthean redaction.

There are just too many turns, too many questions, too many areas that require through knowledge in and so on for me to consider this field worthwhile anymore.

As you say, there are too many roads and every road leads to the next and that next road leads to two or three more. There is a lot of room for getting lost. Its the buttefly effect! Take one wrong road and your screwed or lucky.

Vinnie

CJD · 10-03-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

. . . we start with confidence in the Church and conclude that the witness of Christians throughout history evinces the truth of the resurrection of Christ.

Protestants hate such an idea.

Not all.

And not historically, either. Modern American evangelical-fundys, maybe, but not the Patristic quoting classical kind.

CJD

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
And not historically, either. Modern American evangelical-fundys, maybe, but not the Patristic quoting classical kind.[/B]

They should honestly rejoin the catholic church.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller · 10-03-2003, 12:59 PM

Vinnie wrote:
What if you come to the conclusion that no answer to the synoptic problem today suffices? That affects everything. If you accept Mark without Q or matthean Priority or proto Luke or duetero Mark or Boismard's complex though very explanator solution, or Price's three source hypothesis and so on. The synoptic problem is just one issue though! What about all the other issues? What about all the studies being presented that you don't have the time to read? ou may be missing a crucial piece of data you don't even know about.

Yes Vinnie. But after years of study, I found for myself that GMark came first, then most of Q material, then the other Synoptics (from the preceding). This is, except for Q, well accepted. And I pay close attention to a scholarly consensus or near consensus. I check that out regardless, but usually it's OK.
The problem is when they disagree. Then I feel free to do independant and in depth study on my own. In that case, the scholars can provide pointers for me, but the solution, sorry guys, I have to find it on my own.

I remember not long ago, when haggling with Dave on his computerized study: I was ready to concede on a "Matthean" deutero GMark. But when I started to study that on my own, I found I did not have any reason to change my mind. And the study comfirmed part of what I think of Q.

I understand how you feel looking at all these hypotheses. I think this field is too crowded, with individuals or groups or accredited scholars issuing a lot of written material. Many want to go outside the box, and make a place for themself with new theories. Unfortunatly, more you go off-center, more you'll find little evidence in your favor, and a lot against you (which they ignore first, and then address if crucify on them: here starts fighting away the alligators). We see more & more of that those days, but what's the heck, they'll find people which are willing to accept that, because those like the overall conclusion.

For the members of Academia, scholars/professors in biblical/religious studies, there is a lot of pressure on them from their superiors to produce papers and books, in order to elevate the status of their faculty. HJ research is chosen because it is mildly popular. Other scholars dabble also in HJ research for their own benefit.
For others (some among the aforementioned), it is to make money one way or another, even if HJ won't make too many wealthy.
For all this reasons, and these kinds of people, HJ research is way too crowded and many hypotheses are advanced which do not pass either my sanity or my reality check.
But the problem here again, is that many "buyers" will think in a scholarly way (that is as in a separate world), not considering down to earth realities and accept any lofty unrealistic speculations (more so if they have a feel for the scholar/writer, or are fan of his).

For some, it is faith or anti-faith motivated. For others, to satisfy their own curiosity (I hope to be considered in that category).

What about studies not read? If one of these is significantly "correct", there are many ways we will know and be exposed to it.
Furthermore, my contention is, more you know them all (with contradictions & differences between them), more you own mind will be blunted and you will be utterly confused.
About data, there is not that much which can be connected with HJ, and most of it is available on the web.

I think the most efficient way to solve the problems is to go right at the source, that is the primary evidence. Yes, that might take a few years before everything fits.
But what about the other way, looking at all kinds of scholarly works?
That might look like a time-efficient shortcut at first, but chance are you will find yourself confronted for a lifetime with all kinds of theories & hypotheses, and after that all, be as confused as hell!

OOPS, my Blablablah counter is running beyond scale and I better stop here on this post.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
For some, it is faith or anti-faith motivated. For others, to satisfy their own curiosity (I hope to be considered in that category).

Are these contradictory?

"Philosophy begins with wonder." - Aristotle

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller · 10-03-2003, 02:22 PM

Vinnie wrote:
In all honesty, I don't even see how its possible to fix precise dates for most of the canonical Gospels. I don't even see how its possible to fix a date for the Gospel of Matthew any preciser than 75-105. Personally, I find there to be a difference if Matthew is dated at 80 rather than 100. It has an impact on trying to discern trends and so forth.

I got a page on the gospels' dating:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/gospels.shtml

Actually there are three pieces of external evidence which track the time of writing of GMatthew (according to the internal evidence) very closely. Could I be wrong on all three? I do not think so.
And none of this external evidence comes from the Ignatian letters.

Vinnie wrote:
As you say, there are too many roads and every road leads to the next and that next road leads to two or three more. There is a lot of room for getting lost. Its the buttefly effect! Take one wrong road and your screwed or lucky.

If you take the wrong road, figuratively or truly, you'll know.
Figuratively, you'll notice quickly there is little evidence (if any) to support you where you are going. Then you'll find you have to deal with more & more evidence against you.
The solution for the ones who wants to keep going, is to step up the rethoric or elongate the argumentation, ignore the evidence against (or dismiss it with a quick brushing aside), or rely on scholars which arrive to their conclusion with "maybe", "perhaps", etc. (and ignore the other ones who concluded against your path), or ask your readers to accept very unrealistic or arbitrary things. Butterfly or not, you will know.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2003, 02:49 PM

Bernard, you are neither a Christian nor a Mythicist. Help me understand that.

Why do you care about the historical Jesus?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2003, 02:49 PM

Why does Hawking care about cosmology?

best,
Peter Kirby

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

10-03-2003, 07:30 AM	#12
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Vinnie wrote: This is a problem with a lot of Jesus research. There is always more than one explanation for everything--always more than one possible line of development---always more than one possible meanng...ad nausea. Its inference and guesswork. Can't blame the apologists when "historians" do the same. You are right Vinnie. Too many options at each turn. You take the wrong turn and you are out in the wilds. Soon you'll be in a swamp fighting alligators. The trick is to think carefully at each crossing, and select the right turn after considering all the others. And if, even so, you go where you do not have evidence any more to guide you further, then it is time to backtrack, acknowledging you made a wrong turn. That always been part of my methodology. Actually, the main criteria about Jesus' research should be not to go on the wrong tracks. There are thousands out there. Best regards, Bernard PS: I agree with Peter: the empty tomb is fiction.

10-03-2003, 12:59 PM	#16
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Vinnie wrote: What if you come to the conclusion that no answer to the synoptic problem today suffices? That affects everything. If you accept Mark without Q or matthean Priority or proto Luke or duetero Mark or Boismard's complex though very explanator solution, or Price's three source hypothesis and so on. The synoptic problem is just one issue though! What about all the other issues? What about all the studies being presented that you don't have the time to read? ou may be missing a crucial piece of data you don't even know about. Yes Vinnie. But after years of study, I found for myself that GMark came first, then most of Q material, then the other Synoptics (from the preceding). This is, except for Q, well accepted. And I pay close attention to a scholarly consensus or near consensus. I check that out regardless, but usually it's OK. The problem is when they disagree. Then I feel free to do independant and in depth study on my own. In that case, the scholars can provide pointers for me, but the solution, sorry guys, I have to find it on my own. I remember not long ago, when haggling with Dave on his computerized study: I was ready to concede on a "Matthean" deutero GMark. But when I started to study that on my own, I found I did not have any reason to change my mind. And the study comfirmed part of what I think of Q. I understand how you feel looking at all these hypotheses. I think this field is too crowded, with individuals or groups or accredited scholars issuing a lot of written material. Many want to go outside the box, and make a place for themself with new theories. Unfortunatly, more you go off-center, more you'll find little evidence in your favor, and a lot against you (which they ignore first, and then address if crucify on them: here starts fighting away the alligators). We see more & more of that those days, but what's the heck, they'll find people which are willing to accept that, because those like the overall conclusion. For the members of Academia, scholars/professors in biblical/religious studies, there is a lot of pressure on them from their superiors to produce papers and books, in order to elevate the status of their faculty. HJ research is chosen because it is mildly popular. Other scholars dabble also in HJ research for their own benefit. For others (some among the aforementioned), it is to make money one way or another, even if HJ won't make too many wealthy. For all this reasons, and these kinds of people, HJ research is way too crowded and many hypotheses are advanced which do not pass either my sanity or my reality check. But the problem here again, is that many "buyers" will think in a scholarly way (that is as in a separate world), not considering down to earth realities and accept any lofty unrealistic speculations (more so if they have a feel for the scholar/writer, or are fan of his). For some, it is faith or anti-faith motivated. For others, to satisfy their own curiosity (I hope to be considered in that category). What about studies not read? If one of these is significantly "correct", there are many ways we will know and be exposed to it. Furthermore, my contention is, more you know them all (with contradictions & differences between them), more you own mind will be blunted and you will be utterly confused. About data, there is not that much which can be connected with HJ, and most of it is available on the web. I think the most efficient way to solve the problems is to go right at the source, that is the primary evidence. Yes, that might take a few years before everything fits. But what about the other way, looking at all kinds of scholarly works? That might look like a time-efficient shortcut at first, but chance are you will find yourself confronted for a lifetime with all kinds of theories & hypotheses, and after that all, be as confused as hell! OOPS, my Blablablah counter is running beyond scale and I better stop here on this post. Best regards, Bernard

10-03-2003, 02:22 PM	#18
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Vinnie wrote: In all honesty, I don't even see how its possible to fix precise dates for most of the canonical Gospels. I don't even see how its possible to fix a date for the Gospel of Matthew any preciser than 75-105. Personally, I find there to be a difference if Matthew is dated at 80 rather than 100. It has an impact on trying to discern trends and so forth. I got a page on the gospels' dating: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/gospels.shtml Actually there are three pieces of external evidence which track the time of writing of GMatthew (according to the internal evidence) very closely. Could I be wrong on all three? I do not think so. And none of this external evidence comes from the Ignatian letters. Vinnie wrote: As you say, there are too many roads and every road leads to the next and that next road leads to two or three more. There is a lot of room for getting lost. Its the buttefly effect! Take one wrong road and your screwed or lucky. If you take the wrong road, figuratively or truly, you'll know. Figuratively, you'll notice quickly there is little evidence (if any) to support you where you are going. Then you'll find you have to deal with more & more evidence against you. The solution for the ones who wants to keep going, is to step up the rethoric or elongate the argumentation, ignore the evidence against (or dismiss it with a quick brushing aside), or rely on scholars which arrive to their conclusion with "maybe", "perhaps", etc. (and ignore the other ones who concluded against your path), or ask your readers to accept very unrealistic or arbitrary things. Butterfly or not, you will know. Best regards, Bernard

10-03-2003, 02:49 PM	#19
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Bernard, you are neither a Christian nor a Mythicist. Help me understand that. Why do you care about the historical Jesus? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.