Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-13-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

Bruce Chilton on the Jesus Project and Jesus Seminar

via Mark Goodacre's blog

This writer is full of s..t...

Can you show us how Chilton is what you say he is? And will you be kind enough to do so?

Jeffrey

dog-on · 01-13-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This writer is full of s..t...

Can you show us how? And will you be kind enough to do so?

Jeffrey

Hello Dr. Gibson!

Quote:

In various presentations at meetings of the Seminar and in its journal, I called attention to signs of Aramaic antecedents in the language of the Gospels and to indications of sources behind the Gospels, both written and oral. On the whole, however, my Judaic approach did not find much resonance within the majority.

No resonance because he was F.o.S.

Quote:

The first has to do with the sociology of graduate education in the field of New Testament and early Christianity, which has notoriously skimped on the study of Semitic languages, although Aramaic and Syriac, as well as Hebrew, were clearly major languages of Christianity alongside Coptic, Greek, and Latin until at least the time of the rise of Islam.

Indeed, Aramaic, to read all of the ancient Christian documents written in this language. Unbelievably F.o.S...

Quote:

The second factor was more specific to the Seminar: a pronounced preference for a Greek Jesus over an Aramaic Jesus. That preference was reinforced by fashion within the Seminar and a few other circles, which has since been contradicted directly by archaeological work, to describe Galilee as an urban and Hellenistic environment, where Greek was mostly spoken.

Umm, what!!??? How about the only original language we have on record is Greek (minus a few occasional dramatic flourishes). Archaeological work from first century Palestine that, in any way, relates to Christians, how?

Why don't we just make crap up and call it scholarship, works in other academic fields...

oh wait... F.o.S.

So this dude is going to re-translate the original text back into the "pre-original" version...

(F.o.S.)

Quote:

perhaps most notably F. Stanley Jones. He repeatedly urged me, when we happened to attend the same meetings of the Seminar, to continue my project of retranslating Jesus’ teaching into Aramaic of the first century,

Are you smiling yet? I am about to bust a gut, myself.

Quote:

At the same time, the Seminar’s Hellenistic bias in the use of archaeological evidence and anthropological analysis was becoming increasingly obvious within the discipline of New Testament study.

I don't know, maybe because real scholars along with real archaeologists and anthropologists have decided to stop making shit up...

and, of course, this...

Quote:

Further, the Project has focused on an incoherent set of some of the least important questions in scholarship. For example, it keeps asking “Did Jesus exist?” as if that issue had not been raised repeatedly during the past two centuries

Least important question?????????????:constern02::constern01:

Yes, Dr. Gibson, this writer is, indeed, full of it!

Toto · 01-13-2009, 09:03 AM

Acharya S pro and con has been split off here.

No Robots · 01-13-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed, Aramaic, to read all of the ancient Christian documents written in this language.

Source-critical Aramaic primacists research first-century Aramaic, culture, and psychology to reconstruct the New Testament sources in dialects contemporary to its authors.--Aramaic_primacy#Aramaic_Source_Criticism

Quote:

Archaeological work from first century Palestine that, in any way, relates to Christians, how?

It helps disprove that Hellenistic influences played any substantial role in the formation of the Gospels.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-13-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Can you show us how? And will you be kind enough to do so?

Jeffrey

Hello Dr. Gibson!

No resonance because he was F.o.S.

Indeed, Aramaic, to read all of the ancient Christian documents written in this language. Unbelievably F.o.S...

Umm, what!!??? How about the only original language we have on record is Greek (minus a few occasional dramatic flourishes). Archaeological work from first century Palestine that, in any way, relates to Christians, how?

Why don't we just make crap up and call it scholarship, works in other academic fields...

oh wait... F.o.S.

So this dude is going to re-translate the original text back into the "pre-original" version...

(F.o.S.)

Are you smiling yet? I am about to bust a gut, myself.

I don't know, maybe because real scholars along with real archaeologists and anthropologists have decided to stop making shit up...

and, of course, this...

Quote:

Further, the Project has focused on an incoherent set of some of the least important questions in scholarship. For example, it keeps asking “Did Jesus exist?” as if that issue had not been raised repeatedly during the past two centuries

Least important question?????????????:constern02::constern01:

Yes, Dr. Gibson, this writer is, indeed, full of it!

FWIW it seems to me that all you've done anove is to point out where you think Chilton is full of it. There's nothing in what you write which tells us anything about why you think he is, let alone anything that shows us shows that your evaluations shoukd be taken seriously.

In other words, all I'm hearing from you is "Chiton is full of it because I say he is".

Jeffrey

dog-on · 01-13-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW it seems to me that all you've done anove is to point out where you think Chilton is full of it. There's nothing in what you write which tells us anything about why you think he is, let alone anything that shows us shows that your evaluations shoukd be taken seriously.

In other words, all I'm hearing from you is "Chiton is full of it because I say he is".

Jeffrey

Jeffrey would you be so kind as to tell me why, specifically, you think that he is not full of it, since I think I was fairly clear about why I, in fact, do think he is full of it?

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-13-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW it seems to me that all you've done anove is to point out where you think Chilton is full of it. There's nothing in what you write which tells us anything about why you think he is, let alone anything that shows us shows that your evaluations shoukd be taken seriously.

In other words, all I'm hearing from you is "Chiton is full of it because I say he is".

Jeffrey

Jeffrey would you be so kind as to tell me why, specifically, you think that he is not full of it,

Did I say I thought he wasn't? So far as I can see, all I did was to ask you what it was that Chilton said that led you to your conclusion that he was "full of it" and to request that note the reasons/arguments you had for saying so in vis a vis what you idenrified as execrable.

Quote:

since I think I was fairly clear about why I, in fact, do think he is full of it?

I beg to differ. So far as I can see, all you did was to point out specific claims or remarks of his that you thought were execrable. You did not explain why you thought so, and you've certainly not offered any argument or evidence that indicates that your evaluation might be correct and or that anyone else should think the way you do about what Chilton has said.

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-13-2009, 01:38 PM

So - once again - we do not know if Jeffrey is demanding that someone justify a stance because he is playing professor and forcing the student to go through the exercise of justifying his work, or if he really thinks that Aramaic primacy is a respectable position.

Ben C Smith · 01-13-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So - once again - we do not know if Jeffrey is demanding that someone justify a stance because he is playing professor and forcing the student to go through the exercise of justifying his work, or if he really thinks that Aramaic primacy is a respectable position.

I cannot speak for Jeffrey, but I think it partly depends on what you mean by Aramaic primacy. The notion that the gospels themselves were originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek is certainly not in favor. But there is nothing disreputable about looking for the Aramaic base for individual sayings or pericopes.

I know Chilton does the latter. I do not know for certain whether he does the former, too.

Ben.

Toto · 01-13-2009, 03:39 PM

Part II on Richard Carrier's blog on the Amherst conference

Very informative.

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

01-13-2009, 09:03 AM	#73
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acharya S pro and con has been split off here.

01-13-2009, 01:38 PM	#78
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So - once again - we do not know if Jeffrey is demanding that someone justify a stance because he is playing professor and forcing the student to go through the exercise of justifying his work, or if he really thinks that Aramaic primacy is a respectable position.

01-13-2009, 03:39 PM	#80
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Part II on Richard Carrier's blog on the Amherst conference Very informative.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.