show_no_mercy

Heh, I'm not an NT scholar so I'm not stating my opinion as authoritative. I think that some sort of proto-Matthew could have been written first, with subsequent gospels becoming less Jewish and more Greek-Gnostic (Matt > Mark > Luke > John > Phillip > etc.). But it's also [more] possible that Mark was written first and Matthew was written as a Jewish or "Judaized" version of Mark. Since that's more than likely the scholarly consensus, I'll appeal to authority on that one

Ben C Smith

Nor would we accept it as such even if you did state it as authoritative.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

But the film never specifically claims claims that the actual source of film is Ptolemy's "memoirs", let alone solely this.

Besides that, Jay's point is that because we cannot verify from Ptolemy's memoirs what it is that the film (or even the character that Anthony Hopkins plays in the film) narrates about Alexander, then the whole of what it is that the film (or the character) narrates about Alexander must be, and was being proclaimed by Stone as, fiction. And this is ludicrous.

In any case, Jay doesn't know what he's talking about when he says, on a misreading and misrepresentation of what the end title says, to wit:

Quote:

Over time the Great Library at Alexandria was destroyed by a series of fires. Ptolemy's memoirs of Alexander, along with many other great memories of the ancient world, vanished."

that we don't have anything left to us of Ptolemy's history. There is -- as he'd know if he'd only checked -- quite a lot of material directly from Ptolemy's history in Arrian's Anabasis (in fact, it is Arrian's main source for what he writes there ) as well as in Strabo and Plutarch. We also have material from the memoir of Aristobolus which had also been in the Library of Alexandria

So once again, Jay shows us not only that he cannot distinguish between a legitimate conclusion and a non sequitur , but that he does not have the familiarity with ancient texts or ancient history, let alone the characteristics of ancient genres, that he presents himself as having.


Jeffrey

Apostate1970

No, it doesn't help and I don't think I've missed any point. My post was specifically in response to this comment in the original thread post. Italics are mine.

Why can't it be true? Who cares if Stone didn't have it? All that matters is that the event actually happened. But Jay says that it can't have happened. That it is literally impossible for it to have happened. How can that comment possibly be justified? Does Jay have decisive historical proof that it didn't?

I think what he meant to say is that for various reasons, including a dearth of evidence that any such document ever existied, Stone's work was imaginative and not reliable or responsible history. That's fine, but then just say that instead.

Moreover, what he actually said is that once any document is destroyed then it no longer has any history at all. No matter if there were multiple eyewitnesses to it or if there are mutiple written or artifact records that attest to the documents existence ... that's all just too bad because it's gone now and thus everything in regards to it (including its destruction supposedly!) is fiction.

But why stop at documents? I crush a can and throw it in the trash. Whoops, it no longer exists. I take a single step forward and thus am no longer in the same place ... I've destroyed my previous self and thus have no history. Anything I say about my purportedly historical self is a fiction and unfounded.

Again, this is obviously preposterous and I can't believe it's what Jay meant but, yet again, just read the quote yourself.

mountainman

Dear Apostate1970,

Are you aware that Jay's OP is a movie. Not all movies reflect "historical truth". Not all literature passed off as "historical documents" contain "historical truth", let alone the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Best wishes,


Pete

patcleaver

We do not know the intent of the authors of the Gospels.

There is no evidence at all that the purpose of the gospel writers was to record history or start a religion. That is just a hindsight presupposition by close minded literalists. It is far more likely that the gospels were composed as fiction.

Sometimes the author of a fictional story provides hints that its fiction. PhilosopherJay has noticed that author of gJohn has included something that might be an intentional hint that the gospel is fiction. The issue here is are there intentional hints that the gospel is fiction or simply mistakes.

You would expect a few mistakes and a few fictional literary devices in a fictional work, but there is so much use of fictional literary devices and blatant errors in the gospel that they are just screaming that they are fiction. For example, why would they have Jesus prophesy that he would be dead for 3 days and 3 night and then have Jesus only be dead for one day and two nights? Why would they show that Joseph was descended from David and then have God rape Mary. Why would they have Jesus say that he would return in the lifetime of the audience and then not return. Maybe they are telling us that its fiction.

Do you really think the authors thought that anyone would believe a story about someone named God Saves who was conceived when God the father screwed some virgin possessed by God the mother; and then did all these miracles just like Bacchus and Appolinus of Tyana and then went flying around with the devil and then got killed by a vast conspiracy of Jews and Romans working together, and then died on a stake, but was resurrected and ascended into heaven and was the messiah even though he did not fulfill any of the real prophesies about the messiah. Surely they were intending to write a fairy tail for entertainment or some anti-messianic polemic. The Jews would have recognized right away that it was derived from the OT - and not believed it.

Jeffrey Gibson

Except that it's not.

Any guesses as to what topic/hobby horse Pete is both alluding to here as well as attempting to bring into this thread?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that the religious movement about which the Gospel writers write existed before they wrote, so that the idea that they intended to start a religion is historical nonsense, I'm sure that such scholars as Burridge, Aune, Hengel, Talbert, Bryan, Collins, and others (whose work you haven't read) who note that, given the genre of the Gospels, there is some interest on the Evanglelist's parst to record history, would be very interested to know that they are all literalists, let alone of the "close" (or even closed) minded kind!

Well done, Pat.

Now about your claim that there are 10,000 gods being worshipped today...

Jeffrey

Apostate1970

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of all of that. (Or rather, it's not a movie but refers to one.)

patcleaver

This is BS. You don't have any reasonable evidence that Christianity existed before the gospels were written. The earliest verification of the existence of Paul is 4th century.

I agree - it seems like they were writing fiction for entertainment.

If they thought they knew that the genre of the Gospels was history, then they were sadly mistaken.

I have no respect for authorities as sources of unsupported opinions. The source of knowledge is facts.

If someone made a huge contribution to knowledge, I would respect them for that, but I would not respect their theories for any reason except conformance with the facts.

I have little respect for Christian Bible Scholars, Theologians or apologists. Most of them are insane crackpots who are unable to overcome their biases - and thus they do not even qualify as scholars.