Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Bishop · 03-31-2006, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerryTryon

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

The Septuagint was produced because Jews in the Diaspora could no longer read Hebrew. By the 1st century, the Hebrew Torah was pretty much confined to the Temple and assorted classrooms. There were several versions of the Septuagint, some in Palestine itself. Most Jews couldn't read Hebrew and had no need to do so.

I went all over the internet, all over town and eventually to the local university's research library to see if your version of the history and significance of the Septuagint were true. I couldn't find anything outside the crassest Christian apologetics that remotely support your position. I did find this Co-opting the Tanach. It is the most concise summary of my mornings research. Or even more concise: not Jews; not Hebrew; not Palestinians.

I'm not sure now where I got my knowledge of the history of the Septuagint and the lack of Hebrew knowledge amongst 1st Century Judaeans, which matched exactly what mens said. But I'm quite certain it did not derive from Christian apologetics! Possibly Introduction to the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) by JW Rogerson.

From the "Coopting the Tanach" link, I note the following about Jamnia.

Quote:

In response to this disturbing development, Jewish religious leaders convened the Council of Jamnia in 92 A.D., determined to separate true scripture from wannabe texts and outright heresy, Christian or otherwise. According to the Council, for a text to be retained as official scripture, it must:

Conform to the Torah (a.k.a the Pentateuch)
Be written in Hebrew.
Have been written in Palestine.
Have been generated before 400 B.C.

This is in fact fatal to the MJ hypothesis, if true. However, despite being an HJ-er myself, it seems to me to be hardly likely that what passed for Jewish authority would make such a fundamental change to what would be henceforth classified as Scripture, in response to Christian texts and use of the Scripture. I simply don't see that as likely, as early as 92. But conversely, if it is the case, then clearly a great deal of MJ speculation which casts doubt on how early it is reasonable to ascribe the earliest Christian texts in the absence of actual manuscripts for any time prior to 180 CE (apart from a single fragment of about 125), crumbles completely. If there were sufficient Christian texts around by 92 to cause a major Jewish rethink, then clearly there were texts around at that time, and even some of the Jamnian Jews would have known people who had witnessed the events in Jerusalem, or more crucially, would have witnessed their non-occurrence in the event of an MJ.

Doug Shaver · 03-31-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is a pity that you appear to see no value at all in it.

I carefully explained why I see no value in it. Your pity is misplaced unless you can find fault with my reasoning. You are welcome to try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

To each his own, I guess.

You may judge an authority according to how well he supports what you believed before you read his work. I judge an authority by the quality of his arguments. If his arguments are no good, I won't use him to support my position even if he agrees with me. If he disagrees with me, I just might change my mind if his arguments are good enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I would enjoy debating point-by-point with you. However, I do not wish to tax either you or the other readers.

Whether I would feel taxed will depend entirely on how cogently you present your case. I suspect other readers would feel the same way, but they must speak for themselves.

jakejonesiv · 03-31-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I carefully explained why I see no value in it. Your pity is misplaced unless you can find fault with my reasoning. You are welcome to try.

You may judge an authority according to how well he supports what you believed before you read his work. I judge an authority by the quality of his arguments. If his arguments are no good, I won't use him to support my position even if he agrees with me. If he disagrees with me, I just might change my mind if his arguments are good enough.

Whether I would feel taxed will depend entirely on how cogently you present your case. I suspect other readers would feel the same way, but they must speak for themselves.

I would like to see the discussion continued. Doug has made a critique of Brunner that seems quite rational, but if No Robots is satisfied for that to be the last word, then so be it.

Jake

No Robots · 03-31-2006, 08:16 AM

I'm trying to show to those that do not accept mythicism that Brunner provides both a positive atheist Christology and a solid critique of mythicism. I don't expect mythicists or those sympathetic to them to respond positively to Brunner.

jakejonesiv · 03-31-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'm trying to show to those that do not accept mythicism that Brunner provides both a positive atheist Christology and a solid critique of mythicism. I don't expect mythicists or those sympathetic to them to respond positively to Brunner.

As far as I can see, Brunner's theories are so subjective that they can have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus. I am giving you a chance to counter that argument.

Even, if for sake of argument, we assume that Jesus was historical, how did he get to be such a supreme genius? Any comments?

Jake Jones

No Robots · 03-31-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

As far as I can see, Brunner's theories are so subjective that they can have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus. I am giving you a chance to counter that argument.

As I said, I am not really interested in defending Brunner against mythicists. I'm a firm believer that you can lead an ass to the Living Waters, but you can't make him think.

Quote:

Even, if for sake of argument, we assume that Jesus was historical, how did he get to be such a supreme genius? Any comments?

No, just a suggestion: READ THE BOOK.

jakejonesiv · 03-31-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

As I said, I am not really interested in defending Brunner against mythicists. I'm a firm believer that you can lead an ass to the Living Waters, but you can't make him think.

You have several times offered Brunner as a source of persuasive arguments against mythicism. As you did in this post.

You have not been at all bashful in criticizing mythicism, but when it comes time to scrutinize your guy, you opt out.

I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Jake

yalla · 03-31-2006, 09:24 AM

From the Brunner site:
''...the question of Christ is fundamental to human ecology".
Now what is that supposed to mean?

No Robots · 03-31-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

You have not been at all bashful in criticizing mythicism, but when it comes time to scrutinize your guy, you opt out.

Ok, Jake, you win. Here we go.

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

03-31-2006, 08:16 AM	#124
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	I'm trying to show to those that do not accept mythicism that Brunner provides both a positive atheist Christology and a solid critique of mythicism. I don't expect mythicists or those sympathetic to them to respond positively to Brunner.

03-31-2006, 09:24 AM	#128
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	From the Brunner site: ''...the question of Christ is fundamental to human ecology". Now what is that supposed to mean?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.