Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 01-04-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

We don't know much about christian output between 50 and early 2nd century so I have no way of answering that question.

Sorry. I meant after 150. Does any period of 40 years after 150 and before Christianity became official match the period 110-150 under these hypothetical circumstances? (I do not know offhand; I am just asking.)

Quote:

Why is it a lot of gospel stuff to place between 110 and 150? That's forty years! Surely, a few pages could be manufactured in that time...

Of course. But you are the one who brought up stats and indices and such. I would like to know if 110-150 fits well with Christian production in, say, 150-190.

Quote:

As we get closer to the early second century we start seeing narrative added, which may be why Papias, sitting on the cusp, as it were, knew of both logia and narratives (the latter, according to Eusebius/Papias, sound like they are still crude by this stage).

I think this sentence betrays a misconception of the term logia, a misconception that I myself used to share. I notice, based on some of his comments, that Diogenes the Cynic may also share it. I have a great deal of respect for both of you, so I do not want to leave you hanging as such on what I think logia really are, but a full discussion will have to wait at least a bit until I have more time to get into it.

Quote:

Sometime right around or shortly after Papias, someone finally writes a decent gospel, probably Mark, a native Latin speaker, and the trend catches on quickly and we start seeing the other gospels and the harmonies. That all fits the facts much better than the mainstream scenario which has no evidential support and suffers from a host of MS trajectory problems, both in terms of christology and textual family relationships.

I think it absolutely fails a few data points that you seem to be assuming (at least for the sake of argument) but perhaps not noticing. But, again, it will take time to assemble them properly.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-04-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not too up on gnostic literature. Could you post a link or explain why you think that Basilides used Luke?

Hippolytus, Refutation 7.14, writing of Basilides:

Τουτο εστι, φησι, το ειρημενον· �*νευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε, το απο της υιοτητος δια του μεθοριου πνευματος επι την ογδοαδακαι την εβδομαδα διελθον μεχρι της Μαριας, και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι, η δυναμις της κρισεως απο της ακρωρειας ανωθεν του δημιουργου μεχρι της κτισεως, ο εστι του υιου.

This is, he says, that which is spoken: The holy spirit shall come upon you, that which came away from the sonship through the coterminous spirit upon the ogdoad and the hebdomad, unto Mary, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you, the power of judgment from the height from above, the demiurge, unto the creation, that is, the son.

Andrew may have something else in mind, but this is the datum that comes to my mind.

Ben.

Julian · 01-04-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. Your understanding of probability is at fault again. Say you have a handful of mss; let's assume ten mss. fo this example. You are trying to say that the more copies you have, the chance that any one of them is the original gets smaller and smaller. In my example, then, you believe that each mss. has a 1/10 chance of being the original. That is not correct. The copies do not all have the same probability of being the autograph. Only the earliest mss. is a viable candidate for that, since later copies can reliably assumed to be copies. So of the ten mss., find the earliest one - then the other nine of them are automatically out of the running. Or, if you have a handful that are all much earlier than the rest (say three of the ten are very early, with very small margins of error), then it is those three which are the only viable candidates for being the autograph, the other seven are out of the running.

So the question that you're facing is actually this: what is the probability that my earliest mss. is not a copy, but is in fact the original? I hope you can now see another reason why adding extra copies of mss. does not affect probability, because all the mss. are not identical in quality or characteristics.

Hmmm, not quite. I am not going to do this in LaTex so I hope everyone can follow along here.

For any individual MS we have a straight inverse of N, so P_i = 1/N which clearly makes the autograph probability P_auto = P_i = 1/N. However, since we are dealing with generations we can infer the following general observations which will hold true in most cases. P_range = i + n - i / N = n/N. It is also clear that if we arrange the autograph and copies chronologically with the autograph at zero, then i_n+1/N > i_n/N.

If we are able to roughly date a fragment and conclude that n =< estimate then the above formulae can be applied by simply setting N = estimate which simply increase the likelyhood of having the autograph because estimate < N but we are still left with P_auto = 1/N or 1/estimate.

So, the answer to what is the probability that my earlist mss is the autograph? Simple. P_auto = 1/N with N being the estimate of how early it can be placed in terms of maximum rank.

So, Gamera is correct in his assessment.

Julian

Julian · 01-04-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I am not too up on gnostic literature. Could you post a link or explain why you think that Basilides used Luke?

Hippolytus, Refutation 7.14, writing of Basilides:

Τουτο εστι, φησι, το ειρημενον· �*νευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε, το απο της υιοτητος δια του μεθοριου πνευματος επι την ογδοαδακαι την εβδομαδα διελθον μεχρι της Μαριας, και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι, η δυναμις της κρισεως απο της ακρωρειας ανωθεν του δημιουργου μεχρι της κτισεως, ο εστι του υιου.

This is, he says, that which is spoken: The holy spirit shall come upon you, that which came away from the sonship through the coterminous spirit upon the ogdoad and the hebdomad, unto Mary, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you, the power of judgment from the height from above, the demiurge, unto the creation, that is, the son.

Andrew may have something else in mind, but this is the datum that comes to my mind.

Ben.

Ah, I was skimming through Irenaeus.

Anyways, we are not really talking about a linguistic correlation here, but rather the idea of the holy spirit coming upon Mary, right? This may just have been part of the generally known gospel material at the time. Much like Barnabas seem to know much material yet never really quote anything. It would be reasonable to assume that the gospels would adapt material generally known to Christians in general. One would expect overlaps in terms of ideas and basic christology.

Julian

Julian · 01-04-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Sorry. I meant after 150. Does any period of 40 years after 150 and before Christianity became official match the period 110-150 under these hypothetical circumstances? (I do not know offhand; I am just asking.)

A deep and complicated question to which I don't have a ready answer. There are no MSS to correlate with so I would have to scour the catena and filter out the stuff that isn't really a gospel reference. A daunting task, indeed, but one that I have wanted to undertake for some time. The ANF scripture references are fairly useless but make a good starting checklist. I may buckle down and do this, but not today.

Quote:

Of course. But you are the one who brought up stats and indices and such. I would like to know if 110-150 fits well with Christian production in, say, 150-190.

So would I.

Quote:

I think this sentence betrays a misconception of the term logia, a misconception that I myself used to share. I notice, based on some of his comments, that Diogenes the Cynic may also share it. I have a great deal of respect for both of you, so I do not want to leave you hanging as such on what I think logia really are, but a full discussion will have to wait at least a bit until I have more time to get into it.

Okay, I guess I can wait.

So I take it that this is your take on the term and not a representation of a view that you could link to.

Quote:

I think it absolutely fails a few data points that you seem to be assuming (at least for the sake of argument) but perhaps not noticing. But, again, it will take time to assemble them properly.

Well, I certainly look forward to it.

I always appreciate your insight.

Thanks, Ben.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 01-04-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Okay, I guess I can wait.

So I take it that this is your take on the term and not a representation of a view that you could link to.

It it not my original take on the term, but I cannot link to the necessary references, since they are in hardcopy only (AFAIK). The main ones are Gundry in his commentary on Mark (and he also goes into it in his commentary on Matthew); Orchard and Riley in their book on the synoptic problem; Hengel in The Johannine Question and other works; Bauckham in his latest book; and there are others that I know only through quotations in the above works.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-04-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Anyways, we are not really talking about a linguistic correlation here, but rather the idea of the holy spirit coming upon Mary, right?

As Hippolytus quotes him, Basilides is claiming that these words were spoken. Compare the angelic speech in Luke 1.35 to this quote by Basilides, and it is evident that Basilides is commenting on something he is reading. Remove the commentary comments and you have 10 words verbatim in Greek, all in order, between Luke and Basilides (if, of course, Hippolytus is quoting the now lost work accurately).

There are ways out of making Basilides rely on Luke here, but a general knowledge of gospel material is not really one of them; Basilides is directly quoting somebody.

Quote:

Much like Barnabas seem to know much material yet never really quote anything.

I would be pleased as punch to make Barnabas rely on generic gospel material (or even on his own scriptural imaginations). But I always trip up on Barnabas 4.14: As it is written, many are called, but few chosen. Barnabas claims to be quoting a text.

Quote:

It would be reasonable to assume that the gospels would adapt material generally known to Christians in general.

Oh, how often this reasonable assumption is not assumed on this particular board!

Ben.

Julian · 01-04-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Okay, I guess I can wait.

So I take it that this is your take on the term and not a representation of a view that you could link to.

It it not my original take on the term, but I cannot link to the necessary references, since they are in hardcopy only (AFAIK). The main ones are Gundry in his commentary on Mark (and he also goes into it in his commentary on Matthew); Orchard and Riley in their book on the synoptic problem; Hengel in The Johannine Question and other works; Bauckham in his latest book; and there are others that I know only through quotations in the above works.

Ben.

I haven't read any of those (sigh, so many books in the world, so little time) so I may be wrong here, but isn't that a rather orthodox collection of authors?

Either way, their background shouldn't affect the argument so I will keep an open mind.

Julian

Julian · 01-04-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

As Hippolytus quotes him, Basilides is claiming that these words were spoken. Compare the angelic speech in Luke 1.35 to this quote by Basilides, and it is evident that Basilides is commenting on something he is reading. Remove the commentary comments and you have 10 words verbatim in Greek, all in order, between Luke and Basilides (if, of course, Hippolytus is quoting the now lost work accurately).

There are ways out of making Basilides rely on Luke here, but a general knowledge of gospel material is not really one of them; Basilides is directly quoting somebody.

Well, it would seem that I was a bit hasty and careless. Upon further review, I see the following:

πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε [snip] και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι

and I could even grant a paraphrase of 'son' at the end. Hmmm, interesting. Again, I suspect a common source, or a litugical phrase, perhaps. But even if it is Luke, it wouldn't present a significant problem to my view since I could concede to some sort of early version of Luke, possibly final Luke, at the time of (later) Basilides. Which I would have to anyways, because of Marcion.

Quote:

I would be pleased as punch to make Barnabas rely on generic gospel material (or even on his own scriptural imaginations). But I always trip up on Barnabas 4.14: As it is written, many are called, but few chosen. Barnabas claims to be quoting a text.

Sounds like a nice catchphrase, the kind of utterance that Christians might have used about themselves back when they were a distinct minority. Certainly material I would have used if I had heard it and I was writing a gospel.

Quote:

Oh, how often this reasonable assumption is not assumed on this particular board!

My interest is in going where the evidence takes me. Facts are facts and my like or dislike of them will in no way change reality. Being a fan and follower, to the best of my ability, of the stoic philosophy, I can sum it up nicely: It is what it is.

Which would also be an accurate short description of stoicism.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 01-04-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian, emphasis mine

Certainly material I would have used if I had heard it and I was writing a gospel.

Heard it? Do you mean read it? Barnabas claims that he found it written.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.