Bede

It is pretty obvious that Maccoby is not really worth the effort. Stuff like Paul lying turns on guys around here but it is based on the kind of selective anachronistic reading that made Freke and Gandy such stars in the academic firmament.

The fact is that there have always been fringe writers like Doherty, Maccoby and Price and people desperate enough to believe the stuff they say. We find further fringe writers like Habermas on the other side and sensible academics like Meta (and I might add, me) don't take too much notice of them either.

Meta's case, that basically most of the guys who post here don't know shit about this subject except what they've picked up on the net is true in all its essentials. To prove it, just note three of the most talented posters here, Kirby, Sumner and Vinnie. All are non-theists, all at the sceptical end of recognised scholarship and all end up fighting running battles with mythers whenever they try to have an intelligent discussion.

Insulting Meta or me isn't going to change the fact that no one off this board pays the slightest attention to any of the authors you love. Raymond Brown, on the other hand, is and always will be a scholarly titan.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library -faith and reason

Amaleq13

I hope to see some but I haven't yet. I also hope to see less angry rhetoric, derogatory comments and strawman exaggerations of stated positions. I've heard you are quite pleasant in the face of opposition elsewhere so I know you are capable of it.

On the contrary, I do accept him as an important scholar but that doesn't mean his every conclusion must be assumed to be 100% correct. It would be extremely naive to ignore the fact that he is conducting his examination from the context of a strong Christian faith. It would be just as naive to ignore the fact that another scholar is an atheist. This does not mean it is rational to dismiss their entire arguments based on a potential bias. It simply means we should more carefully examine their conclusions when they seem to agree with the individual's prior assumptions and take it very seriously when they find reason to accept apparently contrary conclusions.

For example, I consider the claim that this is a false statement attributed to Gamaliel stronger than if it had only been made by a non-Christian scholar because Brown accepts it. Therefore, I am less persuaded by the arguments of other "conservative" scholars (eg Bruce) when they suggest that there might have been another uprising by a different Theudas.

However, it is only reasonable, given the existence of this false attribution, to begin to question the reliability of anything associated with this same character in the story. This is a standard that is even applied in a court of law.

Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertions, I hold that same view.

Metacrock

That's telling em, Bede. We are in the same boat here it seems.

Interesting that you think Habermas is the christian counter part to Maccoby and Doherty. I thought he was a fairly stable meember of the Frankfort school.


that's a joke, Vokosign will get it. Different Habermas. I've met Jurgen Habermas but I faild to impress him because I kept thinking "say something to impress him." then he was gone.

Metacrock

Ooo, you want me to say good stuff, AND CAN THE NEGATIVE! ah, why didn't you say so. Ok sure, now we are getting somewhere. :wave:






I didn't say I agree with everything he says. But compare him with Maccoby.


and yea I agree, there are good atheist scholars. In real acadmeic circles we don't have these kinds of stupid arguments, and we dont' go "O I dont like him because of his private belief system."


Yea I agree with you there, but that's hardly a reason to think Paul didn't study with Gamaliel.







Hey wait, no its not! that's a good question though. Do canonical writtings have prsumption? Or should we aoutomatically detract presumption from them for being canonical?

I think Acts is demonstratred to have enough accruate knoweldge from its author of the region and time that there is no sound basis for doubting it on its face.





Ok then I apologize, I was being cynical. Now I'm trying to turn over a new leaf show you what a nice guy I am. :angel:

Amaleq13

Yes but their presuppositions have to be taken into account just as much. Likewise, their arguments require greater attention when the conclusions seem contrary to their apparent prior assumptions.

I'm glad to hear it but that is precisely the impression I got of from your dismissal of Maccoby. The article to which you linked was another story entirely.

I disagree. It is an entirely reasonable basis to question the claim.

Are you denying that it is a reasonable basis to question anything attributed to Gamaliel or that it is a standard applied in a court of law? There is no question about the latter. Juries are told that all of a witnesses testimony may be rejected if a single false statement can be identified. This is actually more than I am suggesting since I am only suggesting that it introduces doubt. The burden, from that point on, is upon anyone wishing to claim that the it is, unlike the established falsehood, reliable.

Given the specific nature of the falsehood, reliance on a broader context doesn't seem reasonable. I'm not calling the entirety of Acts into question based on the identified falsehood. It only involves claims regarding Gamaliel. If the author has been shown to be willing to fabricate at least one statement relating to Gamaliel, why should we believe anything claimed about him?

Thank you.

Metacrock

Yea, that's good stuff. Thanks for the valuable link!

Don't know why I missed this post before.

Metacrock

I mean the sefl serving assumptions like dont' question the text and the things said in that post. I'm sorry if you thoguht I was pissing. I dont' want that either. Let's just be friednds, agree to differ? :wave:

Metacrock

Well I don't like his belief, that's not why I say he's wrong.I think he's wrong because it seem to me he's just trying to present a case favoarble to his ant-christian assumptions, and based upon selective evidence.





Sure, questioning is fair enough. But dont try to translate questioning in to fact. I find this happening all the time on message boards, people assume that if something is questioned its totally disproven. I have reasons to accept it and feel that the questions are answered or not that improtant.







I am agaisnt trying to put everything into a court case. I've been in Ph.D. work as a historian for a number years now, no committee meember, or any professor, or any fellow Doctoral Candidate has ever said 'ah, but would your thesis stand up in a court of law?" When I discuss my dissertation with my committee chair he never says stuff like "we have to get it in good enough shape that a jury would accept it." I mean historians dont' think that way. In Seminary,none of the textaul critics ever aruged that way. Good old Josh did that to us I guess, but it's not revlivant. We as historians and textual critics have our own standards, we don't need to barrow those of jurisprudence.






that makes even less sense. Why only question that and not all of ACTS? But you have no speicific evidendce that Paul didnt' study with him. It seems from what I"ve seen your entire case for questioning just amounts to saying "it's acts it must be wrong." Is there somethign I've forgotten? I could be wrong. :huh:

johntheapostate

Who Paul studied under is of little significance to me because who you study under will not magically transform a falsehood into truth under any circumstances. I was raised fundamentalist so I base my arguments in whether Paul's doctrine can be reconciled with the accepted authoritative Hebrew scripture as recognized by Christianity which is the Old Testament.And if I need proof that originates outside of the Bible, I have 2000 years that testify that Paul was deluded and if I may make a bold prediction, I will say that another 2000 years will pass and the return of Christ will still not be an actuality,and another 2000 and so on till the end of time.

Metacrock

that is a massively fallacious standard. There are so many things wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin:

(1) What we think of as orothdox for their day is based upon

(a) what fundies want to think Jews are like--which is totally off the mark

(b) what Jews of today want to think they were like back then which is equally off the mark.

(2) there is no one to say that the heterodox factions were any less Jewish or less right with God than the Orthdoox.

(3) one could make a dman good argument that the Phraisees highjacked the preisthood and the Essenes represetned the trure preisthood. In fact that's exactly what happened, with the Macabees; that is the event that is refurred to in the Qumran texts abotu the wicked priest and the teacher of righteousness.

(4) Since the Jews didnt' have a closed Canon in paul's day you can't really say "this was the true Judaism" and some other version wasn't.

(5) what would make the pharisees any more "Jewish" than the Saducees?

(6) Just projecting the REformed fundie ideas about Christanity on to the Jewish scene


(7) Your original stament: "whether Paul's doctrine can be reconciled with the accepted authoritative Hebrew scripture as recognized by Christianity which is the Old Testament" doesnt' make much sense because Paul is recognized by protestants as stacking up with the OT.







Sorry, just asserting that he's wrong for 2000 years doesnt' cut it. sounds like the fallacy of ipsie dixeit to me.