FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-11-2009, 05:24 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
Yes, isn't the suggestion usually that Philostratus' "Damis" source, who was depicted as a bumpkin slave or something who kept a personal diary, was invented as an excuse for the "color" of Philostratus' account. I mean things like the rolling robots dispensing hot & cold running water in the homes of the Indian Brahmans, or his drinking bout with them without anyone getting drunk, not a few of the miracles, etc.
Dear DCHindley,

Eusebius is compelled to write a large number of books in refutation of "The History of Philostratus" in which he mentions Damis but provides no indication that Damis (also Apollonius) was anything other than an historical figure. Eusebius (Against Hierocles) also confirms some of the points listed in the OP -- independently -- 1) Cities the subject visited, 2) Temples the subject visited, 3) Accounts written of him, 4) Letters by the subject. Eusebius composed his text c.324 CE, therefore perhaps a century after Philostratus wrote "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana".

Quote:
Considering the likely date of composition (ca. 200 CE), and the fact that his depiction of Apollonius as a wandering reformer/philosopher often seems to be a weird conflation of Jesus of the Gospels and the Paul of Acts, and that Acts contains a "we" source that sounds a lot like the Damis account, is has been proposed that the Gospels and Acts served as some of Philostratus' sources for details and color.
This proposal has been the standard academic commentary, is repeated in Maria Dzielska since the political treatise of Eusebius, but is based on the assumption that the new testament was in fact extant prior to Philostratus c.216 CE, and that Philostratus then had some knowledge of the NT (but suppressed it purposefully). We have no evidence other than that supplied via Eusebius to substantiate the presumed perhaps second century date of composition for the NT. There is nothing in "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" supports this conjecture, since it makes no mention at all of Christians, of Jesus or the apostles, etc. We need to be aware however that the reverse is not entirely and consistently true, since the name of Apollonius/Apollo is mentioned in Acts (Codex Bezae/other codices) as an independent operator. It makes more sense to me that the fabrication of the NT happened after the year c.216 CE and used Philostratus as one of the sources in a collage of borrowings.

Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 01-13-2009, 07:10 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Book Him Damno

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
The claim is often made by Apologists that the Gospels fall into the category of Greco-Roman biographies.

Can you please name who these "apologists" are and state why it is that you consider them to be so? Is the claim ever made by anyone who is not by your unstated definition of "apologist" an "apologist"? Was Votaw one such beastie?

Jeffrey
JW:
Hmmm. This is indirectly related to the OP and a potential distraction. Should I react belligerently (like I normally do) or for once, flip it and stop kicking against the Gibsoads. Maybe I should see Gibson as a valuable asset, a Skeptical Greek professor. I could respond in an intellectual and scholarly way. Help create a rational discussion based on mutual understanding respect and quality. Accept constructive criticism in the spirit of learning and avoid these incessant ego battles based on lesser issues.......
Naaaaah!

Toto, I'm curious, Gibson wrote 7 posts here (two were deleted) after I had only written the OP, none of which directly relate to the OP. Is that some type of record?

MM, with his obsession of Constantine and JG with his obsession of MM's obsession of Constantine, always remind me of Lokai and Bele crashing into my Thread from their Constantine Galaxy. For the time being I'll continue with lecture unless someone has a comment directly related to the OP.

Continuing with identified sources in The Life of Apollonius

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...1_01.html#%A71

Quote:
But the more precise details which I have collected are as follows.

[§3] There was a man, Damis, by no means stupid, who formerly dwelt in the ancient city of Nineveh. He resorted to Apollonius in order to study wisdom, and having shared, by his own account, his wanderings abroad, wrote an account of them.[3] And he records his opinions and discourses and all his prophecies. And a certain kinsmen of Damis drew the attention of the empress Julia [Domna, wife of Septimius Severus] to the documents containing these documents hitherto unknown.

Now I belonged to the circle of the empress, for she was a devoted admirer of all rhetorical exercises; and she commanded me to recast and edit these essays, at the same time paying more attention to the style and diction of them; for the man of Nineveh had told his story clearly enough, yet somewhat awkwardly.

And I also read the book of Maximus of Aegae, which comprised all the life of Apollonius in Aegae; and furthermore a will was composed by Apollonius, from which one can learn how rapturous and inspired a sage he really was. For we must not pay attention anyhow to Moeragenes, who composed four books about Apollonius, and yet was ignorant of many circumstances of his life.
JW:
Here the author provides specific sources:

1) Damis - wrote an account of Appollonius.

2) Maximus of Aegae - wrote a book about Appollonius.

3) Appollonius - wrote a will.

4) Moeragenes - wrote four books about Appollonius (the author is critical of this source).



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:06 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with identified sources in The Life of Apollonius

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...1_01.html#%A71

Quote:
[§3] There was a man, Damis, by no means stupid, who formerly dwelt in the ancient city of Nineveh. He resorted to Apollonius in order to study wisdom, and having shared, by his own account, his wanderings abroad, wrote an account of them.[3] And he records his opinions and discourses and all his prophecies. And a certain kinsmen of Damis drew the attention of the empress Julia [Domna, wife of Septimius Severus] to the documents containing these documents hitherto unknown.

Now I belonged to the circle of the empress, for she was a devoted admirer of all rhetorical exercises; and she commanded me to recast and edit these essays, at the same time paying more attention to the style and diction of them; for the man of Nineveh had told his story clearly enough, yet somewhat awkwardly.

And I also read the book of Maximus of Aegae, which comprised all the life of Apollonius in Aegae; and furthermore a will was composed by Apollonius, from which one can learn how rapturous and inspired a sage he really was. For we must not pay attention anyhow to Moeragenes, who composed four books about Apollonius, and yet was ignorant of many circumstances of his life.

That then I combined these scattered sources together and took trouble over my composition, I have said; but let my work, I pray, redound to the honor of the man who is the subject of my compilation, and also be of use to those who love learning. For assuredly, they will here learn things of which as yet they were ignorant.
JW:
Here we have provenance for the author:

1) Who - "the circle of the empress". Autographs are always arguable but it is unanimous as far as I know that the author is Flavius Philostratus.

2) What - "recast and edit these essays".

3) Where - "empress Julia"

4) When - "empress Julia"

5) Why - "she commanded me"

6) How - "I combined these scattered sources together"



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:09 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

ooh, ooh.....do it for Mark...

oh, wait...... the forum doesn't allow blank posts...
dog-on is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 07:03 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post

JW
:
The claim is often made by Apologists that the Gospels fall into the category of Greco-Roman biographies. The purpose of this Thread will be to perform a case study of the significant similarities and differences in presentation of the Gospel "Mark", and The Life of Apollonius as to Sources. Sources are the key difference between biographies and stories as biographies utilize sources in order to control the content while stories avoid sources in order to free the narrative. "Mark" here is the variable or unknown and Apollonius is the control since it is universally agreed to be a Greco-Roman biography.

Tools:

"Mark": http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark

The Life of Apollonius: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...1_01.html#%A71

Quote:
And I have gathered my information partly from the many cities where he was loved, and partly from the temples whose long-neglected and decayed rites he restored, and partly from the accounts left of him by others and partly from his own letters. For he addressed these to kings, sophists, philosophers, to men of Elis, of Delphi, to Indians, and Ethiopians; and in his letters he dealt with the subjects of the gods, of customs, of moral principles, of laws, and in all these departments he corrected the errors into which men had fallen. But the more precise details which I have collected are as follows.
JW:
The author identifies the following sources in general:

1) Cities the subject visited.

2) Temples the subject visited.

3) Accounts written of him.

4) Letters by the subject.

Compare to "Mark" which never explicitly claims any source. Beyond that "Mark" makes it a point of trying to deny by implication that there were any human sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

and the coup de grace

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Quote:
16:8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
At this point "Mark" would not just be not a biography, it would be anti-biography (denial of sources).

A related issue to consider in this brief inquiry is what exactly constitutes a biography. Is it merely the intent of the author, as Apologists claim, or is it the effort? Let's say for example that Jeffrey Gibson writes what he considers to be a biography of Mr. Doherty but Gibson limits his sources to posts of Mr. Doherty on these boards and articles by those critical of Mr. Doherty. In contrast Gibson ignores/gives inadequate attention to Mr. Doherty's main works such as books, articles and websites and articles by those approving of Mr. Doherty. Would we say that Gibson has written a biography of Mr. Doherty? Or maybe just a bad one?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
I suggest to carefully read the "Contra Celsum" by Origen. Within you can find an interpretative key very important, absurdly escaped to all scholars, professional or not, who have ventured in researches to exegetic purposes

Littlejohn
.
Littlejohn is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:43 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The last chapter of the eight book of the Life of Apollonius appear to signify that the character was not known or as stated "lived unobserved" and left "unobserved".

It is very odd to me that Damis left information of Apollonius up to his "unobserved" disappearance from earth.

If Apollonius was really deified, I would expect that his death would have been known independent of Damis, yet Philostratus could not find any information of the death of a deified man, a great philosopher with divine powers.

I don't think Apollonius did exist, except as a myth.

The 4th century coin of Apollonius maybe was minted in remembrance of the myth Apollonius, perhaps similar to having money with the words "In God we trust" where the words may make people think God indeed exist and can be trusted.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 12:38 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
Continuing with identified sources in The Life of Apollonius

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...1_01.html#%A71

Quote:
[§3] There was a man, Damis, by no means stupid, who formerly dwelt in the ancient city of Nineveh. He resorted to Apollonius in order to study wisdom, and having shared, by his own account, his wanderings abroad, wrote an account of them.[3] And he records his opinions and discourses and all his prophecies. And a certain kinsmen of Damis drew the attention of the empress Julia [Domna, wife of Septimius Severus] to the documents containing these documents hitherto unknown.

Now I belonged to the circle of the empress, for she was a devoted admirer of all rhetorical exercises; and she commanded me to recast and edit these essays, at the same time paying more attention to the style and diction of them; for the man of Nineveh had told his story clearly enough, yet somewhat awkwardly.

And I also read the book of Maximus of Aegae, which comprised all the life of Apollonius in Aegae; and furthermore a will was composed by Apollonius, from which one can learn how rapturous and inspired a sage he really was. For we must not pay attention anyhow to Moeragenes, who composed four books about Apollonius, and yet was ignorant of many circumstances of his life.

That then I combined these scattered sources together and took trouble over my composition, I have said; but let my work, I pray, redound to the honor of the man who is the subject of my compilation, and also be of use to those who love learning. For assuredly, they will here learn things of which as yet they were ignorant.
JW:
Here we have provenance for the author:
Leaving aside the fact that you have not established that statements of "provenance" of sources was an element essential to the genre Greco Roman biography, which you would have to do if you were going to make the claim that the absence of this feature in GMark counts against its being a form of that genre, are you actually saying that a statement of "provenance" something that distinguishes a biography from a story?

If so, the works in which these statements of "provenance" of sources, must be judged biographies.

Jeffrey


Quote:
I had this story from one who had no business to tell it to me, or to any other. I may credit the seductive influence of an old vintage upon the narrator for the beginning of it, and my own skeptical incredulity during the days that followed for the balance of the strange tale.



When my convivial host discovered that he had told me so much, and that I was prone to doubtfulness, his foolish pride assumed the task the old vintage had commenced, and so he unearthed written evidence in the form of musty manuscript, and dry official records of the British Colonial Office to support many of the salient features of his remarkable narrative.


I do not say the story is true, for I did not witness the happenings which it portrays, but the fact that in the telling of it to you I have taken fictitious names for the principal characters quite sufficiently evidences the sincerity of my own belief that it MAY be true.



The yellow, mildewed pages of the diary of a man long dead, and the records of the Colonial Office dovetail perfectly with the narrative of my convivial host, and so I give you the story as I painstakingly pieced it out from these several various agencies.
Quote:
Yes, he existed in flesh and blood, although he assumed the complete appearance of a real phantom; that is to say, of a spectral shade. When I began to ransack the archives of the National Academy of Music I was at once struck by the surprising coincidences between the phenomena ascribed to the "ghost" and the most extraordinary and fantastic tragedy that ever excited the Paris upper classes; and I soon conceived the idea that this tragedy might reasonably be explained by the phenomena in question. The events do not date more than thirty years back; and it would not be difficult to find at the present day, in the foyer of the ballet, old men of the highest respectability, men upon whose word one could absolutely rely, who would remember as though they happened yesterday the mysterious and dramatic conditions that attended the kidnapping of Christine Daae, the disappearance of the Vicomte de Chagny and the death of his elder brother, Count Philippe, whose body was found on the bank of the lake that exists in the lower cellars of the Opera on the Rue-Scribe side. But none of those witnesses had until that day thought that there was any reason for connecting the more or less legendary figure of the Opera ghost with that terrible story.



The truth was slow to enter my mind, puzzled by an inquiry that at every moment was complicated by events which, at first sight, might be looked upon as superhuman; and more than once I was within an ace of abandoning a task in which I was exhausting myself in the hopeless pursuit of a vain image. At last, I received the proof that my presentiments had not deceived me, and I was rewarded for all my efforts on the day when I acquired the certainty that the Opera ghost was more than a mere shade.



On that day, I had spent long hours over THE MEMOIRS OF A MANAGER, the light and frivolous work of the too-skeptical Moncharmin, who, during his term at the Opera, understood nothing of the mysterious behavior of the ghost and who was making all the fun of it that he could at the very moment when he became the first victim of the curious financial operation that went on inside the "magic envelope."


I had just left the library in despair, when I met the delightful acting-manager of our National Academy, who stood chatting on a landing with a lively and well-groomed little old man, to whom he introduced me gaily. The acting-manager knew all about my investigations and how eagerly and unsuccessfully I had been trying to discover the whereabouts of the examining magistrate in the famous Chagny case, M. Faure. Nobody knew what had become of him, alive or dead; and here he was back from Canada, where he had spent fifteen years, and the first thing he had done, on his return to Paris, was to come to the secretarial offices at the Opera and ask for a free seat. The little old man was M. Faure himself.


We spent a good part of the evening together and he told me the whole Chagny case as he had understood it at the time. He was bound to conclude in favor of the madness of the viscount and the accidental death of the elder brother, for lack of evidence to the contrary; but he was nevertheless persuaded that a terrible tragedy had taken place between the two brothers in connection with Christine Daae. He could not tell me what became of Christine or the viscount. When I mentioned the ghost, he only laughed. He, too, had been told of the curious manifestations that seemed to point to the existence of an abnormal being, residing in one of the most mysterious corners of the Opera, and he knew the story of the envelope; but he had never seen anything in it worthy of his attention as magistrate in charge of the Chagny case, and it was as much as he had done to listen to the evidence of a witness who appeared of his own accord and declared that he had often met the ghost. This witness was none other than the man whom all Paris called the "Persian" and who was well-known to every subscriber to the Opera. The magistrate took him for a visionary.



I was immensely interested by this story of the Persian. I wanted, if there were still time, to find this valuable and eccentric witness. My luck began to improve and I discovered him in his little flat in the Rue de Rivoli, where he had lived ever since and where he died five months after my visit. I was at first inclined to be suspicious; but when the Persian had told me, with child-like candor, all that he knew about the ghost and had handed me the proofs of the ghost's existence—including the strange correspondence of Christine Daae—to do as I pleased with, I was no longer able to doubt. No, the ghost was not a myth!


I have, I know, been told that this correspondence may have been forged from first to last by a man whose imagination had certainly been fed on the most seductive tales; but fortunately I discovered some of Christine's writing outside the famous bundle of letters and, on a comparison between the two, all my doubts were removed. I also went into the past history of the Persian and found that he was an upright man, incapable of inventing a story that might have defeated the ends of justice.
This, moreover, was the opinion of the more serious people who, at one time or other, were mixed up in the Chagny case, who were friends of the Chagny family, to whom I showed all my documents and set forth all my inferences. In this connection, I should like to print a few lines which I received from General D——:
SIR:
I can not urge you too strongly to publish the results of your inquiry. I remember perfectly that, a few weeks before the disappearance of that great singer, Christine Daae, and the tragedy which threw the whole of the Faubourg Saint-Germain into mourning, there was a great deal of talk, in the foyer of the ballet, on the subject of the "ghost;" and I believe that it only ceased to be discussed in consequence of the later affair that excited us all so greatly. But, if it be possible—as, after hearing you, I believe—to explain the tragedy through the ghost, then I beg you sir, to talk to us about the ghost again.


Mysterious though the ghost may at first appear, he will always be more easily explained than the dismal story in which malevolent people have tried to picture two brothers killing each other who had worshiped each other all their lives.
Believe me, etc.
Lastly, with my bundle of papers in hand, I once more went over the ghost's vast domain, the huge building which he had made his kingdom. All that my eyes saw, all that my mind perceived, corroborated the Persian's documents precisely; and a wonderful discovery crowned my labors in a very definite fashion. It will be remembered that, later, when digging in the substructure of the Opera, before burying the phonographic records of the artist's voice, the workmen laid bare a corpse. Well, I was at once able to prove that this corpse was that of the Opera ghost. I made the acting-manager put this proof to the test with his own hand; and it is now a matter of supreme indifference to me if the papers pretend that the body was that of a victim of the Commune.


The wretches who were massacred, under the Commune, in the cellars of the Opera, were not buried on this side; I will tell where their skeletons can be found in a spot not very far from that immense crypt which was stocked during the siege with all sorts of provisions. I came upon this track just when I was looking for the remains of the Opera ghost, which I should never have discovered but for the unheard-of chance described above.
But we will return to the corpse and what ought to be done with it. For the present, I must conclude this very necessary introduction by thanking M. Mifroid (who was the commissary of police called in for the first investigations after the disappearance of Christine Daae), M. Remy, the late secretary, M. Mercier, the late acting-manager, M. Gabriel, the late chorus-master, and more particularly Mme. la Baronne de Castelot-Barbezac, who was once the "little Meg" of the story (and who is not ashamed of it), the most charming star of our admirable corps de ballet, the eldest daughter of the worthy Mme. Giry, now deceased, who had charge of the ghost's private box. All these were of the greatest assistance to me; and, thanks to them, I shall be able to reproduce those hours of sheer love and terror, in their smallest details, before the reader's eyes.


And I should be ungrateful indeed if I omitted, while standing on the threshold of this dreadful and veracious story, to thank the present management the Opera, which has so kindly assisted me in all my inquiries, and M. Messager in particular, together with M. Gabion, the acting-manager, and that most amiable of men, the architect intrusted with the preservation of the building, who did not hesitate to lend me the works of Charles Garnier, although he was almost sure that I would never return them to him. Lastly, I must pay a public tribute to the generosity of my friend and former collaborator, M. J. Le Croze, who allowed me to dip into his splendid theatrical library and to borrow the rarest editions of books by which he set great store.
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 03:14 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
Thread will be to perform a case study of the significant similarities and differences in presentation of the Gospel "Mark", and The Life of Apollonius as to Sources. Sources are the key difference between biographies and stories as biographies utilize sources in order to control the content while stories avoid sources in order to free the narrative.
Can you produce anything from any expert on Greco Roman biographies and the techniques used by authors of Greco-Roman biographies in constructing their narratives that supports your claim that "sources", let alone the way that authors of ancient biographies utilized sources ot the fact that they referred to the sources they employed, are the keys to recognizing what is a [COLOR=red]βιος [COLOR=black]and what is not?
JW:
It took some effort Jeffrey but I think the above is the closest you've come in this Thread to directly addressing the OP. I deliberately said "biographies" and not "Greco Roman biographies". The larger context is what is the related evidential value. Obviously a biography is generally much better evidence than a story. I'll repeat "Sources are the key difference between biographies and stories as biographies utilize sources in order to control the content while stories avoid sources in order to free the narrative."

In considering the potential evidential value of the Gospels we should be considering the modern definition of "biography". I am intentionally broadening the discussion beyond Greco-Roman biography. One of the techniques of Apologists is association. Here they do thusly:

1) The Gospels have common characteristics with Greco-Roman biographies.

2) Therefore the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies.

3) Greco-Roman biographies are a type of biography.

4) Therefore Greco-Roman biographies are comparable to modern biographies.

To have a consensus as to what exactly a Greco-Roman biography meant to an ancient you would have to have an ancient explain what exactly a Greco-Roman biography meant to an ancient. We don't have that do we. It's subjective. That's why there's no consensus. Brown (maybe you heard of him) summarily dismissed the Gospels as GR biography because they are instead, brace yourself, Gospels. "The Gospel of Jesus" vs. "The Life of Apollonius". You're the Greek professor, please translate "life" here into Greek. Brown specifically notes that "Mark" lacks a lineage, has no father and has no triumph.

It should be apparent by now from this Thread that the ancients were aware of the importance of sources in order to distinguish between biography and story. Certainly GR biography was broader that modern biography as to use of sources which creates the problem that you can not be sure what the author intended to imply as to sources. The Apologist is correct that the GRB is more likely to have unidentified sources than a modern biography but it goes both ways. The lack of identification of sources in GRB makes it more likely that it has bad sources.

My main points here are as follows:

1) There is no consensus as to the whether the Gospels are GRB.

2) The ancients were aware of the importance of sources regarding biographies.

3) In evaluating the Gospels as evidence, a more useful comparison is the modern biography.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Do we find such statements in all works which the ancients recognized as biographies -- especially those whose date of composition is closer chronologically to that of Mark than the Life of Apollonius is?
Jeffrey
JW:
Regarding chronology, my The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter indicates the best dating of "Mark" is post Bar Kochba c. 135. I have faith that you have also been moving in this direction.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 03:45 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

Can you produce anything from any expert on Greco Roman biographies and the techniques used by authors of Greco-Roman biographies in constructing their narratives that supports your claim that "sources", let alone the way that authors of ancient biographies utilized sources ot the fact that they referred to the sources they employed, are the keys to recognizing what is a [color=red]βιος [color=black]and what is not?
JW:
It took some effort Jeffrey but I think the above is the closest you've come in this Thread to directly addressing the OP. I deliberately said "biographies" and not "Greco Roman biographies". The larger context is what is the related evidential value. Obviously a biography is generally much better evidence than a story.
Evidence of what?

Quote:
I'll repeat "Sources are the key difference between biographies and stories as biographies utilize sources in order to control the content while stories avoid sources in order to free the narrative."
Which is an assertion that you have yet to provide any evidence for, let alone which shows that it has any validity whatsoever.

Quote:
In considering the potential evidential value of the Gospels we should be considering the modern definition of "biography".
Why?

Quote:
I am intentionally broadening the discussion beyond Greco-Roman biography. One of the techniques of Apologists is association.
Who are these apologists?

Quote:
Here they do thusly:

1) The Gospels have common characteristics with Greco-Roman biographies.

2) Therefore the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies.

3) Greco-Roman biographies are a type of biography.

4) Therefore Greco-Roman biographies are comparable to modern biographies.
Can you name any of the apologists you refer to who have actually drawn the conclusion that you claim they have (i.e., "Therefore Greco-Roman biographies are comparable to modern biographies") from the premises you list?

Better, can you cite the places in their works where they can be seen to do/have done this? I'd also like to see what they specifically say, if they actually do, about the ways that "Greco-Roman biographies are comparable to modern biographies".


To have a consensus as to what exactly a Greco-Roman biography meant to an ancient you would have to have an ancient explain what exactly a Greco-Roman biography meant to an ancient. We don't have that do we.

We don't? Even indirectly? And isn't the issue not what the GR biographt meant to the ancient, but what literary features were essential to it, which distinguished it from anyother genre of literture that ancient writers employed?

Quote:
It should be apparent by now from this Thread that the ancients were aware of the importance of sources in order to distinguish between biography and story.
Apparent from what?. You've not offered a bit of evidence that "the ancients were aware of the importance of sources in order to distinguish between biography and story".

And I see you've dodged my question regarding what you'd have to conclude, given your logic, about the genre of the text from which the quotes I provided you came.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 06:34 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
Brown (maybe you heard of him) summarily dismissed the Gospels as GR biography because they are instead, brace yourself, Gospels.
Brown wrote under the Bultmannian genre assumptions about the gospel, before Burridge swayed the field in the opposite direction. It does nothing to quote Brown on gospel genre without grappling with what has happened since Burridge wrote. Even if Brown is right and Burridge is wrong.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.