Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 08-13-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

There is an old joke about a preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes: "Argument weak: speak louder." You give the appearance of using bolding in much the same way.

One fairly obvious problem with this argument is that the Gospel according to the Ebionites in the fragments preserved in Epiphanius has both of these sayings. The Gospel according to the Ebionites is clearly related to the Gospel of Luke, very probably having a source in common with it.

If Luke's source had both sayings, then the "You are my son the beloved, in you I am well pleased" is not a made up substitute for the Psalm 2 quote but an already existing tradition. There are multiple possible reasons why one version of Luke should preserve one saying from the baptism and a different version would preserve another. One that suggests itself is that there may have been two originals of Luke with different readings.

Peter.

another problem (not to mention the issues with the specific point) is the use of early manuscripts as evidence of later changes only proves the point that we can be confident because we have early manuscripts.

We can be confident of what?

Toto · 08-13-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

...
There is an old joke about a preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes: "Argument weak: speak louder." You give the appearance of using bolding in much the same way.

I fail to see the weakness here.

Quote:

One fairly obvious problem with this argument is that the Gospel according to the Ebionites in the fragments preserved in Epiphanius has both of these sayings. The Gospel according to the Ebionites is clearly related to the Gospel of Luke, very probably having a source in common with it.

The Gospel of the Ebionites, which is only known second hand, appears to be late. Can we be sure that these "fragments" are accurate?

Quote:

If Luke's source had both sayings, then the "You are my son the beloved, in you I am well pleased" is not a made up substitute for the Psalm 2 quote but an already existing tradition. There are multiple possible reasons why one version of Luke should preserve one saying from the baptism and a different version would preserve another. One that suggests itself is that there may have been two originals of Luke with different readings.

Peter.

Two originals? How can there be 2 different first versions? Think about it.

Unless you mean that the original was Mark - which is clearly adoptionist. Did aLuke make a first attempt to copy Mark, and then revise it? You still don't get two originals.

And what is the point of talking about "early traditions" in this case? Do you think that there is any possibility that a story about a voice from heaven is historical, however early?

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

another problem (not to mention the issues with the specific point) is the use of early manuscripts as evidence of later changes only proves the point that we can be confident because we have early manuscripts.

We can be confident of what?

That the mss we have and the quotes we have are enough in volume, early enough, and spread out geographically enough to know that they represent what the author wrote with incomparably more confidence then any other ancient document. this is true of nearly every NT book?

J-D · 08-13-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

We can be confident of what?

That the mss we have and the quotes we have are enough in volume, early enough, and spread out geographically enough to know that they represent what the author wrote with incomparably more confidence then any other ancient document. this is true of nearly every NT book?

And even if that were true, then so what? Reverting to the original subject of this thread, even if it were confirmed that the original author of Matthew (whoever that was) wrote that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus, then so what?

Petergdi · 08-13-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

...
There is an old joke about a preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes: "Argument weak: speak louder." You give the appearance of using bolding in much the same way.

I fail to see the weakness here.

That's because of human suggestibility exploited by the technique of putting the "in other words" in bold letters. If you unbold the letters then you will have a better chance of seeing that "Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God." is not "other words" for what is said earlier, but is bringing in a new charge against Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Gospel of the Ebionites, which is only known second hand, appears to be late. Can we be sure that these "fragments" are accurate?

I think so. The preserved passages of the Gospel of the Ebionites are very rich in "special Luke" material. No ancient church fathers had any sophistication at all in source criticism. This gives me a great deal of confidence that the material related to Luke's gospel in the Gospel of the Ebionites is being accurately reported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Two originals? How can there be 2 different first versions? Think about it.

Is this just pedantry about the word original? I meant that there could easily be two slightly different versions from Luke's pen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Unless you mean that the original was Mark - which is clearly adoptionist.

Mark isn't "clearly" anything of the sort. Mark has been read as adoptionist, but I don't think that is quite what he is getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And what is the point of talking about "early traditions" in this case? Do you think that there is any possibility that a story about a voice from heaven is historical, however early?

It is a "bat kol" story. It almost certainly doesn't correspond to anything that would have been captured by a tape recorder if there had been such a thing then, but it isn't made up.

It seems it was thought appropriate for the voice to quote Scripture, so it is possible that the verse from Psalm 2 was chosen as the nearest parallel in Scriputure. This is not illegitimate because it was already believed that Scriputure was the voice of God.

Peter.

Toto · 08-13-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I fail to see the weakness here.

That's because of human suggestibility exploited by the technique of putting the "in other words" in bold letters. If you unbold the letters then you will have a better chance of seeing that "Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God." is not "other words" for what is said earlier, but is bringing in a new charge against Christians.

Let's review:

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.

The point is that if Christians felt free to revise the story to make it conform to evolving theology, that those Christians did not take the story as real or historical. Is there a problem with that proposition? It could have been worded more precisely, but you get the basic drift.

Quote:

Is this just pedantry about the word original? I meant that there could easily be two slightly different versions from Luke's pen.

But they couldn't both be the original. One was a revision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And what is the point of talking about "early traditions" in this case? Do you think that there is any possibility that a story about a voice from heaven is historical, however early?

It is a "bat kol" story.

Bat Kol

Bat kol literally means "daughter of a voice," the word "bat" (daughter) suggesting that this was not a direct voice from heaven, but a derivative sound issuing from that voice, a sort of echo. The rabbinic statement implies that the classic prophetic experience of ruach hakodesh (the holy spirit) or gilui shekhinah (manifestation of God's presence) could no longer be experienced in rabbinic times and that the experience of a bat kol was an entirely different phenomenon. As the sole means of communication between God and man after the cessation of prophecy, the bat kol was sometimes perceived as an external voice and at other times only in dreams.

Scholar Max Kedushin reads another implication in the rabbi's pronouncement: While ruach hakodesh or gilui shekhinah gave authority and authenticity to the prophet's words, the bat kol apparently lacked that authority.

Interesting theory, but this voice from heaven sounds like more than a bat kol.

Quote:

It almost certainly doesn't correspond to anything that would have been captured by a tape recorder if there had been such a thing then, but it isn't made up.

If it doesn't correspond to what would have been captured by a tape recorder, then someone made it up.

Now, the motives might have been pure as the driven snow, but it didn't happen, it wasn't historical, and someone made it up.

Quote:

It seems it was thought appropriate for the voice to quote Scripture, so it is possible that the verse from Psalm 2 was chosen as the nearest parallel in Scripture. This is not illegitimate because it was already believed that Scripture was the voice of God.

Peter.

From your point of view, it's not illegitimate to make stuff up if you are channeling god and it seems appropriate? Why should anyone else be willing to rely on history written under these standards?

J-D · 08-13-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

That's because of human suggestibility exploited by the technique of putting the "in other words" in bold letters. If you unbold the letters then you will have a better chance of seeing that "Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God." is not "other words" for what is said earlier, but is bringing in a new charge against Christians.

Let's review:

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.

The point is that if Christians felt free to revise the story to make it conform to evolving theology, that those Christians did not take the story as real or historical. Is there a problem with that proposition? It could have been worded more precisely, but you get the basic drift.

I disagree. Emendation of a text does not necessarily imply lack of belief in its historicity. I think we have to allow for the possibility of people looking at a text they believe to be historical and deciding that an inconsistency between its words and what they believe on other grounds to be true is best explained by the supposition that an error has been introduced into the text by miscopying or something similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But they couldn't both be the original. One was a revision.

Revision of manuscripts is a common procedure. It is also one which frequently creates problems for later editors. Even if they can discover which version is the original and which is the revision (and they can't always), that doesn't by itself settle which should be considered the definitive version. For example, the author might have changed the text on having a better idea, but the author might also have changed the text unwillingly under pressure from, say, a publisher. An authorial revision might have been intended to correct an error, but it also might have inadvertently introduced an error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Bat Kol

Bat kol literally means "daughter of a voice," the word "bat" (daughter) suggesting that this was not a direct voice from heaven, but a derivative sound issuing from that voice, a sort of echo. The rabbinic statement implies that the classic prophetic experience of ruach hakodesh (the holy spirit) or gilui shekhinah (manifestation of God's presence) could no longer be experienced in rabbinic times and that the experience of a bat kol was an entirely different phenomenon. As the sole means of communication between God and man after the cessation of prophecy, the bat kol was sometimes perceived as an external voice and at other times only in dreams.

Scholar Max Kedushin reads another implication in the rabbi's pronouncement: While ruach hakodesh or gilui shekhinah gave authority and authenticity to the prophet's words, the bat kol apparently lacked that authority.

Interesting theory, but this voice from heaven sounds like more than a bat kol.

If it doesn't correspond to what would have been captured by a tape recorder, then someone made it up.

Now, the motives might have been pure as the driven snow, but it didn't happen, it wasn't historical, and someone made it up.

Quote:

It seems it was thought appropriate for the voice to quote Scripture, so it is possible that the verse from Psalm 2 was chosen as the nearest parallel in Scripture. This is not illegitimate because it was already believed that Scripture was the voice of God.

Peter.

From your point of view, it's not illegitimate to make stuff up if you are channeling god and it seems appropriate? Why should anyone else be willing to rely on history written under these standards?

I think we have to allow for the possibility that people thought they heard something when in fact they did not. That happens sometimes. Being mistaken or deluded is not the same as fabricating. The report might record sincere belief but not be veridical.

sschlichter · 08-13-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

That the mss we have and the quotes we have are enough in volume, early enough, and spread out geographically enough to know that they represent what the author wrote with incomparably more confidence then any other ancient document. this is true of nearly every NT book?

And even if that were true, then so what? Reverting to the original subject of this thread, even if it were confirmed that the original author of Matthew (whoever that was) wrote that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus, then so what?

28:13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came at night and stole his body while we were asleep.' Mat 28:14 If this matter is heard before the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." Matt 28:15 indicates why he included the guards in his narrative. for him, writing to jews, it was to counter what the Jews were saying. Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story is told among the Jews to this day.

for us, it is a clue that the Jews of the authors time were saying that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. Why would the Jews be saying that the body of Jesus was stolen if their was no guard, no tomb, or no Jesus. Why would the author make up an objection and then a story to combat the objection when the real objections were Jesus never existed and was never crucified.

The reason is because the jews of the authors day knew there was a crucified Jesus and simply argued that his body was stolen. Matthew's requirement to explain the guards lets us know that Jews knew that Jesus existed and was crucified and claimed the body was stolen by the disciples.

Without the Jews claiming this then matthew would have had no reason to include the guards. No one else was writing to Jews and did not care about the guards at all.

~Steve

J-D · 08-13-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

And even if that were true, then so what? Reverting to the original subject of this thread, even if it were confirmed that the original author of Matthew (whoever that was) wrote that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus, then so what?

28:13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came at night and stole his body while we were asleep.' Mat 28:14 If this matter is heard before the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." Matt 28:15 indicates why he included the guards in his narrative. for him, writing to jews, it was to counter what the Jews were saying. Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story is told among the Jews to this day.

for us, it is a clue that the Jews of the authors time were saying that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. Why would the Jews be saying that the body of Jesus was stolen if their was no guard, no tomb, or no Jesus. Why would the author make up an objection and then a story to combat the objection when the real objections were Jesus never existed and was never crucified.

The reason is because the jews of the authors day knew there was a crucified Jesus and simply argued that his body was stolen. Matthew's requirement to explain the guards lets us know that Jews knew that Jesus existed and was crucified and claimed the body was stolen by the disciples.

Without the Jews claiming this then matthew would have had no reason to include the guards. No one else was writing to Jews and did not care about the guards at all.

~Steve

'Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative', perhaps?

Petergdi · 08-13-2009, 09:20 PM

The earlier part of your post has been replied to very well by J-D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Bat Kol

Bat kol literally means "daughter of a voice," the word "bat" (daughter) suggesting that this was not a direct voice from heaven, but a derivative sound issuing from that voice, a sort of echo. The rabbinic statement implies that the classic prophetic experience of ruach hakodesh (the holy spirit) or gilui shekhinah (manifestation of God's presence) could no longer be experienced in rabbinic times and that the experience of a bat kol was an entirely different phenomenon. As the sole means of communication between God and man after the cessation of prophecy, the bat kol was sometimes perceived as an external voice and at other times only in dreams.

Scholar Max Kedushin reads another implication in the rabbi's pronouncement: While ruach hakodesh or gilui shekhinah gave authority and authenticity to the prophet's words, the bat kol apparently lacked that authority.

Interesting theory, but this voice from heaven sounds like more than a bat kol.

I suggest the Jewish Encyclopedia article which comments a little on the cases reported in the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If it doesn't correspond to what would have been captured by a tape recorder, then someone made it up.

No, people have their own experiences, and they don't always correspond with what a camera would see or a microphone would hear. The experiences are still real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From your point of view, it's not illegitimate to make stuff up if you are channeling god and it seems appropriate? Why should anyone else be willing to rely on history written under these standards?

I didn't say "make stuff up." I said that having the voice quote something from Scripture similar to what was heard may have been seen as a very acceptable way to tell the story because Scripture is acknowledged by believers as the voice of God.

I don't think the Gospels are, or are intended to be, the straightest possible telling of history. It is fairly plain that they tell history with storytelling conventions understood by the authors and expected by them to be understood by their readers.

Peter.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.