Doug Shaver

If it's a proper argument from silence, yes, that's all it is.

You seem to be under the impression that an argument from silence is never rational. I don't agree. What rationalism compels us to do is distinguish between proper and improper arguments from silence.

mountainman

Why do the other nine items on Joe's list not provide anything of real substance?

JoeWallack

JW:
It's not my list that does not provide anything of real substance.

As is often the case in Biblical studies, I think the better question is what is there in "Mark" that is not anachronistic? Which story lacks any sign of a later interpretation?




Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

Strictly QED. One of the smart things I saw Earl Doherty say on this board is that the story Jesus ben Ananias beating would have been in oral circulation before being picked up by Josephus.


This is part of Mark's literary plot of Jesus foreseeing the calamity in Judea in order to assign blame for it. No anachronism here, as the text postulates Jesus having prophetic powers.

Probably, but then again Mark uses 'Galilee' as a deliberate double-entendre (one of them being designation for Mark's contemporary Pauline gentile communities outside of Palestine).

see above my post #23. The address "rabbi" was probably common expression of respect before it became titular..

not informed about that one.

not sure why. The kokim tombs were surely used in 1st century CE.

see #10

Probably. Things probably got rough for the Nazorean "messianists" and Pauline "Christians" in the latter stages of the 66-72 war, as they would have been seen as the cause of the mayhem, and scapegoated.

Same as the wicked husbandmen - no anachronism in the literary plot.

Again, Galilee being symbolic, the issue may be moot but I am just reading J.D.G Dunn's 'Jesus, Paul, and the Law' (or via: amazon.co.uk) and he takes sharply different view from Morton Smith. He discounts his reading of Josephus as 'tendentious'. Dunn sees Yohanan ben Zakkai's residence at Arav (20-40 CE) as part of the Jerusalem Pharisees' strategy of 'stationing' some of its promising teachers in different parts of the country to fortify their presence there. He also cites Josephus' story of the conversion of Izates (Ant. 20:38-48) and points out that Eleazar who overruled the original promise that no circumcision was required for the king looked very much like a Pharisee. Eleazar came from Galilee and was said to be 'strict' in the law, a description that Josephus used to describe the Pharisees.

As I said, the question whether there were Pharisees in Galilee may be moot to the issue of historicity of Mark's plots. In Dunn's perspective, my views would be 'heretic' for believing that Mark's Jesus teases and debunks post-70 Pharisees in the Diaspora. But I think it has significance in reading the backgrounds to the gospels. I think Dunn is right that Jesus would have been criticized by the Pharisees of his time.

In Galatians, Paul provides evidence that at least some of the Jerusalem missions were relaxed with respect to ritual purity while the leader James was not. The basic attitudes to the law may then have played major role in shaping the post-70 Jewish communities, alliances and the drawing of boundaries between the groups, i.e. the Galilean original following of Jesus, the Jerusalem Jacobites (who I believe adopted the 'Jesus orphans'), and Pauline churches.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Please, please, please. The Pauline writings are ALL ANACHRONISTIC and are historically BOGUS.

The Pauline writer CLEARLY KNEW that the Jewish Temple had already fallen of the CALAMITIES of the Jews in the Jewish War c 70 CE.

Romans 11 It was AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple that the Jews were thought to have been CUT-OFF by their God.

It must be noted that only the book of Revelation have been correctly placed AFTER the Fall of the Temple. See "Against Heresies" 5.30.3

It is claimed the Apocalypse of John (REVELATION) was SEEN near the end of the reign of Domitian or sometime around 96 CE.

All other writings in the NT Canon are fundamentally ANACHRONISTIC.

The very OFFER of SALVATION to the JEWS in the NT Canon was based on the knowledge that the Jewish Temple had ALREADY fallen and the Calamities of the Jewish War c 70 CE.

judge

You seem to be putting words in my mouth.
Why wouldn't you be prepared to just use an argument from silence if it is proper? Presumably from what you have written, because it may not convince apologists.

In doing this we turn rationalism into a reaction against apologetics rather than a tool to learn.

IOW I am against pandering to apologists. If the argument is good use it, if not abandon it. Its that simple

Doug Shaver

If one debates apologists in order to convince them, one is almost always wasting one's time. That is particularly so if the issue at hand is scriptural inerrancy. When I debate apologists, it is generally in order to educate the onlookers.

Call it pandering if you must. I call it effective management of limited resources.

judge

So if you thought it was a "tactical mistake" only, then presumably you think it was a valid argument from silence. In which case you would be educating onlookers to not use valid arguments, wouldn't you?

Otherwise it would be more than just a tactical mistake it would be a bogus argument.

Or are you saying never use arguments from silence, even though they may be valid?

Or something else?

Doug Shaver

Arguments from silence are not the only valid arguments. When I debate inerrantists, I use whatever I regard as effective arguments. There are whole big bunches of effective arguments against inerrantism that, while perfectly valid, are not arguments from silence.

I use them whenever I think the context is right for them. When I'm building or fixing something in my shop, I don't always use the same tools all the time. Same thing when I'm debating apologists.

mountainman

Interesting point. So the prophecies are not true?