Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-26-2011, 06:22 PM

"Carthago delenda est" (I know it was Cato the Elder but it's still funny to interject it into every conversation, imitating the old man). Sorry. Strange sense of humor I guess

JoeWallack · 01-27-2011, 07:04 AM

JW:
Next on the list:

Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar

Quote:

9 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] For all that he presently made a more daring attempt at Rome; for a few days before he entered upon his aedileship he was suspected of having made a conspiracy with Marcus Crassus, an ex-consul, and likewise with Publius Sulla and Lucius Autronius, who, after their election to the consulship, had been found guilty of corrupt practices. The design was to set upon the senate at the opening of the year and put to the sword as many as they thought good; then Crassus was to usurp the dictatorship, naming Caesar as his master of horse, and when they had organized the state according to their pleasure, the consulship was to be restored to Sulla and Autronius. 2 This plot is mentioned by Tanusius Geminus in his p13History, by Marcus Bibulus in his edicts, and by Gaius Curio the elder in his speeches. Cicero too seems to hint at it in a letter to Axius, where he says that Caesar in his consulship established the despotism which he had had in mind when he was aedile. Tanusius adds that Crassus, either conscience-stricken or moved by fear, did not appear on the day appointed for the massacre, and that therefore Caesar did not give the signal which it had been arranged that he should give; and Curio says that the arrangement was that Caesar should let his toga fall from his shoulder. 3 Not only Curio, but Marcus Actorius Naso as well declare that Caesar made another plot with Gnaeus Piso, a young man to whom the province of Spain had been assigned unasked and out of the regular order, because he was suspected of political intrigues at Rome; that they agreed to rise in revolt at the same time, Piso abroad and Caesar at Rome, aided by the Ambrani and the peoples beyond the Po; but that Piso's death brought both their designs to naught.

Quote:

30 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] But when the senate declined to interfere, and his opponents declared that they would accept no compromise in a matter affecting the public welfare, he crossed to Hither Gaul, and after holding all the assizes, halted at Ravenna, intending to resort to war if the senate took any drastic action against the tribunes of the commons who interposed vetoes in his behalf.28 2 Now this was his excuse p43for the civil war, but it is believed that he had other motives. Gnaeus Pompeius used to declare that since Caesar's own means were not sufficient to complete the works which he had planned, nor to do all that he had led the people to expect on his return, he desired a state of general unrest and turmoil. 3 Others say that he dreaded the necessity of rendering an account for what he had done in his first consulship contrary to the auspices and the laws, and regardless of vetoes; for Marcus Cato often declared, and took oath too, that he would impeach Caesar the moment he had disbanded his army. It was openly said too that if he was out of office on his return, he would be obliged, like Milo, to make his defence in a court hedged about by armed men. 4 The latter opinion is the more credible one in view of the assertion of Asinius Pollio, that when Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus saw his enemies slain or in flight, he said, word for word: "They would have it so. Even I, Gaius Caesar, after so many great deeds, should have been found guilty, if I had not turned to my army for help." 5 Some think that habit had given him a love of power, and that weighing the strength of his adversaries against his own, he grasped the opportunity of usurping the despotism which had been his heart's desire from early youth. Cicero too was seemingly of this opinion, when he wrote in the third book of his De Officiis29 that Caesar ever had upon his lips these lines of Euripides,30 of which Cicero himself adds a version:

"If wrong may e'er be right, for a throne's sake

Were wrong most right:— be God in all else feared."31

Quote:

49 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] There was no stain on his reputation for p67chastity except his intimacy with King Nicomedes, but that was a deep and lasting reproach, which laid him open to insults from every quarter. I say nothing of the notorious lines of Licinius Calvus:

"Whate'er Bithynia had, and Caesar's paramour."

I pass over, too, the invectives of Dolabella and the elder Curio, in which Dolabella calls him "the queen's rival, the inner partner of the royal couch," and Curio, "the brothel of Nicomedes and the stew of Bithynia." 2 I take no account of the edicts of Bibulus, in which he posted his colleague as "the queen of Bithynia," saying that "of yore he was enamoured of a king, but now of a king's estate." At this same time, so Marcus Brutus declares, one Octavius, a man whose disordered mind made him somewhat free with his tongue, after saluting Pompey as "king" in a crowded assembly, greeted Caesar as "queen." But Gaius Memmius makes the direct charge that he acted as cup-bearer to Nicomedes with the rest of his wantons at a large dinner-party, and that among the guests were some merchants from Rome, whose names Memmius gives. 3 Cicero, indeed, is not content with having written in sundry letters that Caesar was led by the king's attendants to the royal apartments, that he lay on a golden couch arrayed in purple, and that the virginity of this son of Venus was lost in Bithynia; but when Caesar was once addressing the senate in defence of Nysa, daughter of Nicomedes, and was enumerating his obligations to the king, Cicero cried: "No more of that, pray, for it is well known what he gave you, and what you gave him in turn." 4 Finally, in his Gallic triumph his soldiers, among the bantering p69songs which are usually sung by those who followed the chariot, shouted these lines, which became a by-word:

"All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him;

Lo! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls,

Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror."

Quote:

52 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] He had love affairs with queens too, including Eunoe the Moor, wife of Bogudes, on whom, as well as on her husband, he bestowed many splendid presents, as Naso writes;46 but above all with Cleopatra, with whom he often feasted until daybreak, and he would have gone through Egypt with her in her state-barge almost to Aethiopia, had not his soldiers refused to follow him. Finally he called her to Rome and did not let her leave until he had ladened her with high honours and rich gifts, and he allowed her to give his name to the child which she bore. 2 In fact, according to certain Greek writers, this child was very like Caesar in looks and carriage. Mark Antony declared to the senate that Caesar had really acknowledged the boy, and that Gaius Matius, Gaius Oppius, and other friends of Caesar knew this. Of these Gaius Oppius, as if admitting that the situation required apology and defence, published a book, to prove that the child whom Cleopatra fathered on Caesar was not his. 3 Helvius Cinna, tribune of the commons, admitted to several that he had a bill drawn up in due form, which Caesar had ordered him to propose to the people in his absence, making it lawful for Caesar to marry what wives he wished, and as many as he wished, "for the purpose of begetting p73children."47 But to remove all doubt that he had an evil reputation both for shameless vice and for adultery, I have only to add that the elder Curio in one of his speeches calls him "every woman's man and every man's woman."

Quote:

55 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] In eloquence and in the art of war he either equalled or surpassed the fame of their most eminent representatives. After his accusation of Dolabella, he was without question numbered with the leading advocates. At all events when Cicero reviews the orators in his Brutus,50 he says that he does not see to whom Caesar ought to yield the palm, declaring that his style is elegant as well as transparent, even grand and in a sense noble.f Again in a letter to Cornelius Nepos he writes thus of Caesar: 2 "Come now, what orator would you rank above him of those who have devoted themselves to nothing else? Who has cleverer or more frequent epigrams? Who is either more picturesque or more choice in diction?" He appears, at least in his youth, to have imitated the manner of Caesar Strabo, from whose speech entitled "For the Sardinians" he actually transferred some passages word for word to a trial address51 of his own. He is said to have delivered himself in a high-pitched voice with impassioned action and gestures, which were not without grace. 3 He left several speeches, including some which are attributed to him on insufficient evidence. Augustus had good reason to think that the speech "For Quintus Metellus" was rather taken down by shorthand writers who could not keep pace with his delivery, than published by Caesar himself; for in some copies I find that even the title is not "For Metellus," but, "Which he wrote for Metellus," although the discourse purports to be from Caesar's lips, defending Metellus and himself p77against the charges of their common detractors. 4 Augustus also questions the authenticity of the address "To His Soldiers in Spain," although there are two sections of it, one purporting to have been spoken at the first battle, the other at the second, when Asinius Pollio writes that because of the sudden onslaught of the enemy he actually did not have time to make an harangue.

Quote:

56 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] He left memoirs too of his deeds in the Gallic war and in the civil strife with Pompey; for the author of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also supplied the final book of the Gallic War, which Caesar left unwritten. With regard to Caesar's memoirs Cicero, also in the Brutus52 speaks in the following terms: 2 "He wrote memoirs which deserve the highest praise; they are naked in their simplicity, straightforward yet graceful, stripped of all rhetorical adornment, as of a garment; but while his purpose was to supply material to others, on which those who wished to write history might draw, he haply gratified silly folk, who will try to use the curling-irons on his narrative, but he has kept men of any sense from touching the subject." 3 Of these same memoirs Hirtius uses this emphatic language:53 "They are so highly rated in the judgment of all men, that he seems to have deprived writers of an opportunity, rather than given them one; yet our admiration for this feat is greater than that of others; for they know how well and faultlessly he wrote, while we know besides how easily and rapidly he finished his task." 4 Asinius Pollio thinks that they were put together somewhat carelessly and without strict regard for truth; since in many cases Caesar was too p79ready to believe the accounts which others gave of their actions, and gave a perverted account of his own, either designedly or perhaps from forgetfulness; and he thinks that he intended to rewrite and revise them. 5 He left besides a work in two volumes "On Analogy," the same number of "Speeches criticising Cato," in addition to a poem, entitled "The Journey." He wrote the first of these works while crossing the Alps and returning to his army from Hither Gaul, where he had held the assizes; the second about the time of the battle of Munda, and the third in the course of a twenty-four days' journey from Rome to Farther Spain. 6 Some letters of his to the senate are also preserved, and he seems to have been the first to reduce such documents to pages and the form of a note-book,54 whereas previously consuls and generals sent their reports written right across the sheet. There are also letters of his to Cicero, as well as to his intimates on private affairs, and in the latter, if he had anything confidential to say, he wrote it in cipher, that is, by so changing the order of the letters of the alphabet, that not a word could be made out. If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely D, for A, and so with the others. 7 We also have mention of certain writings of his boyhood and early youth, such as the "Praises of Hercules," a tragedy "Oedipus," and a "Collection of Apophthegms"; but Augustus forbade the publication of all these minor works in a very brief and frank letter sent to Pompeius Macer, whom he had selected to set his libraries in order.

Quote:

77 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] No less arrogant were his public utterances, which Titus Ampius records: that the state was nothing, a mere name without body or form; that Sulla did not know his A. B. C. when he laid down his dictatorship; that men ought now to be more circumspect in addressing him, and to regard his word as law. So far did he go in his presumption, that when a soothsayer once reported direful inwards without a heart, he said: "They will be more favourable when I wish it; it should not be regarded as a portent, if a beast has no heart."64

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

DCHindley · 01-27-2011, 08:06 PM

Spoken like an Apologist.

Refer to your announcement of the creation of Holdingloses Law which states that in an argument between Skeptics, if the argument continues sufficiently long, eventually one will compare the other in some way to an Apologist.

What goes around comes around.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Before continuing to demonstrate the qualitative and quantitative parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy I briefly want to make an excursion the other Way and look at a specific criterion in Richard Burridge's god-awful What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography.

Super Skeptic Kneel Godfree is at it again getting the analysis started here:

Are the Gospels Really Biographies? Outlining and Questioning Burridge

The brave and truthful Skeptic writes:

Quote:

Burridge structures his analysis of the generic features shared by βιοι and the gospels as follows. His comments that I cite are from his discussion of the synoptic gospels only. (The italics are Burridge’s.)

...

6. Use of Sources

It was common in βιοι to mention any sources used, e.g. Philostratus’ and Philo’s references to oral and written sources. . . . [T]he evangelists [also] had access to oral and written sources, including notes, collections and in some cases another gospel, from which they selected and edited their material. . . . Thus the freedom to select and edit sources to produce the desire picture of the subject is another feature shared by both the gospels and Graeco-Roman βιοι. (p. 198-9)

Jesus! There are 3 underlieing issues behind this entire study:

1) Sources

2) Sources

3) Sources

Source is the key criterion to evaluate historical evidence. It is not just a criterion, it is not just an important criterion, it is not just the most important criterion. It is the dominant criterion. The best potential historical evidence for source is its identification. Here Bui (Burridge) claims the criterion of source as a parallel because the author:

1) Had sources

2) Edited sources

These are generic in nature and have little value in determining quality of parallel. What should be looked at here is identification of sources. Per Kneel Godfree here are the sample Greco-Roman biographies, contemporary to Jesus' supposed time, that Bui uses:

Quote:

Later

Tacitus on Agricola

Plutarch on Cato the Younger

Suetonius on the Caesars (e.g. Julius Caesar)

Lucian on Demonax

Philostratus on Apollonius

By an act of Providence, all are easily available online. Let's see for ourselves if they identify sources:

Tacitus on Agricola

Quote:

Meanwhile this book, intended to do honour to Agricola, my father-in-law, will, as an expression of filial regard, be commended, or at least excused.

Quote:

I remember that he used to tell us how in his early youth he would have imbibed a keener love of philosophy than became a Roman and a senator, had not his mother's good sense checked his excited and ardent spirit.

Yet again, in an irony that I think "Mark" would really appreciate, the spirit of Truth drives me to buy this book. But not because of how good it is but because of how bad it is.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-28-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Refer to your announcement of the creation of Holdingloses Law which states that in an argument between Skeptics, if the argument continues sufficiently long, eventually one will compare the other in some way to an Apologist.
DCH

JW:
I said that? Boy, that is really good. Be sure it makes it into my Biography.

Richard A. Burridge

Quote:

Burridge was Lazenby Chaplain at the University of Exeter,

Rupert Murdoch was so impressed with Burridge's book that he offered to make him Minister of Propaganda for Glen Beck's show on Faux.

Not as importantly, Next on the list, Count De Money, er, DEMONAX:

Lucian, LIFE OF DEMONAX

Quote:

IT was in the book of Fate that even this age of ours should not be destitute entirely of noteworthy and memorable men, but produce a body of extraordinary power, and a mind of surpassing wisdom. My allusions are to Sostratus the Boeotian, whom the Greeks called, and believed to be, Heracles; and more particularly to the philosopher Demonax. I saw and marvelled at both of them, and with the latter I long consorted. I have written of Sostratus elsewhere 1, and described his stature and enormous strength, his open-air life on Parnassus, sleeping on the grass and eating what the mountain afforded, the exploits that bore out his surname--robbers exterminated, rough places made smooth, and deep waters bridged.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-29-2011, 06:30 AM

JW:
Next on the list, Apollonius of Tyana:

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus

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.

Quote:

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

p. 10 p. 11

wanderings abroad, wrote an account of them. And he records his opinions and discourses and all his prophecies. And a certain kinsmen of Damis drew the attention of the empress Julia 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.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 02-03-2011, 08:00 PM

JW:
I'm interrupting my primary objective in this Thread of identifying parallels between "Mark" and Greek Tragedy (GT) to briefly consider a criteria comparison for the chief competitor to genre for "Mark" in the eyes of Christian Bible scholarship (C BS), Greco-Roman Biography (GRB).

Everyone would agree that the primary intent of modern Biography is to present History. I would go beyond this to say that it is also a reaction to perceived fiction by the author to some extent. The author wants to persuade with evidence that the biography presented is history which is correcting existing fiction on the subject.

Less agreed is the relationship of GRB to modern Biography. Everyone would again agree that the controls for historical evidence are lesser in GRB. The competing primary objectives are presenting history verses presenting character.

The underlying motivation for genre in the context of Polemics is usually evaluating to what extent the genre itself is historical evidence for the writing. A genre of GRB, though not as good as modern Biography due to weakness of controls, is considered better general historical evidence than other genre.

In his book, arguing for the Gospels as GRB, What Are The Gospels, Richard Burridge does not clearly articulate what exactly the significance of this conclusion is regarding the Gospels as historical evidence in general. The closest I can find him coming is page 76:

Quote:

biography is a type of writing which occurs naturally among groups of people who have formed around a certain charismatic teacher or leader, seeking to follow after him.

Burridge than thinks that GRB is general evidence of historical witness to the subject (he thinks that "Mark" was contemporary to Paul). Historical witness has 3 important qualities just as Real Estate's 3 important qualities are Location, Location and Location. Historical witness' 3 important qualities are:

1) Source

2) Source

3) Source

Since the primary significance of GRB here is its weight as historical evidence and that weight is determined primarily by evaluation of sources, sources would be the very best general criterion to use in comparing "Mark" with GRB.

Richard Burridge (RB) identifies Source as a criterion and claims a match because he says that GRB and the Gospels both select and edit sources. He is unable though to identify a single source used by "Mark" which he confesses is the source for "Matthew" and "Luke". The main source he than identifies for "Matthew" and "Luke" is "Mark". This is after identifying a large amount of specific sources for his GRB sample.

Rather than being a match here, this than is a significant difference between GRB (at least RB's sample) and the Gospels. With GRB it is easy to identify known sources. With the Gospels it is very hard, or to the extent it can be done, RB has not done it.

Since Source here is not just a criterion, or just the most important criterion but the key criterion, let's try to rightly divide into sub-criteria. The logical Way to persuade of history would be to IDENTIFY sources. To what extent does the GRB sample identify sources?:

1) Tacitus on Agricola

Tacitus was Agricola's son-in-law. First hand witness identification. The best.

2) Plutarch on Cato

1 - A preserved speech. First hand.

2 - Report of Munatius. Second hand.

3 - Report of Thrasea. Third hand.

3) Suetonius on Julius Caesar

1 - More First hand witness than all the others here combined.

4) Lucian on DEMONAX

Lucian was a student of Demonax. First -hand.

5) Philostratus on Apollonius of Tyana

1 - Letters and will - First-hand.

2 - Damis - Second hand

3 - Maximus of Aegae and Moeragenes - some-hand.

We can see here than that the GRB sample is clearly identifying sources while "Mark" does not. We would see the same significant difference for other quality sub-criteria for source here such as:

1) Provenance of author

2) Credibility of author

3) Location of author

4) Known Fictional sources

Former spokesman for C BS, Raymond Brown, wrote in An Introduction To The New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk):

Quote:

In fact considerable differences exist between Greco-Roman biographies and the Gospels, specifically in the latter's anonymity, their clear theological emphasis and missionary goal, their anticipated ecclesiology, their composition from community tradition, and their being read in community worship. Especially Mark differs from a biography pattern that would highlight the unusual birth and early life of the hero,

Note Brown's identification of "anonymous" at the start.

RB categorically dismisses GT as a possible genre (specifically when discussing "John") because in spite of comparisons with 5 divisions, anagnorisis and reversal of fortunes:

Quote:

John lacks all the formal characteristics to belong to the genre of tragedy, such as being written in verse with three actors and a chorus.

Note that RB rejects GT based on form while acknowledging that there are claimed parallels based on substance.

I would hesitate to reject "Mark" as GRB based only on its failure to parallel Source because that is just one criterion and it could still match up well on most other criteria. Here though, the criterion of Source is substance and not form and the key criterion. So I would be inclined to reject "Mark" as GRB solely because of Source.

A further expansion of criteria relevant to the underlying issue of historical evidence and not identified by RB would further make the difference between "Mark" and GRB clearer such as:

1) Extent of the Impossible

2) 3rd person

3) Connected narrative

4) Use of fictional sources

5) Style

1) and 4) are outright differences of substance. 2) 3) and 5) are differences of form, but significant in the context of potential historical witness. RB's parallels are generally criteria of form and not significant to potential historical witness. This is the difference between my parallels of "Mark" and GT which generally match as to substance and generally differ as to form and RB's which tend to the inverse.

Note Bene Smith - You can often translate what an author is really thinking by what they write at the end. Note that "Mark" ends by saying the disciples told no one. RB ends by saying:

Quote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 20:30-31

(For those who think I'm kidding here, see page 251)

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 02-12-2011, 02:38 PM

JW:
I've posted my fair and balanced review of Richard Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels? here:

Customer Reviews What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Book review ratings should be based on trying to measure the difference between:

1 - What the author was supposed to do

and

2 - What the author did

In rating this book I will divide my evaluation into 5 areas with one star at risk for each rating:

Highlights of my review are as follows:

1) Burridge never clearly states whether he is writing as an Advocate for a genre of Bios or as a Judge.

2) He spends a lot of time going over the history of the issue of Gospel genre and reactions to his assertion of Bios but his review is superficial.

3) He deserves credit for developing a methodology and related criteria which is more than most of his predecessors had.

4) His criteria is based on selecting from previous criteria. The selection is seriously flawed as they are all positive criteria identified to consider possible matches to Bios. No effort is spent on possible Negative criteria to consider possible matches to other genre.

5) He determines a sample to compare the Gospels to based on criteria for identification of Bios. His sample consists of 5 contemporary (to the Gospels) clear examples of Bios. This is the best part of his methodology. The problem here though is that the sample is too small to be conclusive.

6) While making some effort to compare individual Gospels to the sample his conclusions are always based on the Gospels in total. Thus he avoids concluding separately on "Mark" which is the farthest from the sample by far and the most important for purposes of the study. He often claims matches in total and specifically for "Mark" when there are not any and this is the biggest problem with his book.

7) He concludes that the Gospels are Bios, but his own criteria, properly analyzed, shows that most of them do not match. Related to this he makes no effort to weigh criteria relative to each other and when you do, the matching to the sample is more likely to be form (quantitative) and not substance (qualitative).

Actually I have faith that if you used Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus as your sample, than Burridge's criteria applied to "Mark" would parallel better with Oedipus than Life of Julius Caesar.

I also present this review as evidence of "Mark" being Greek Tragedy since I've demonstrated that the genre is not Bios.

Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

ErrancyWiki

Toto · 02-12-2011, 03:48 PM

Your review makes some points that need to be made, but I think your format will keep people from realizing its brilliance. (It reads like notes you made to yourself, rather than complete sentences - too much white space, using 'B' to refer to the author. I wonder if you had this in a formatted document and copied it to Amazon, losing the formatting?)

JoeWallack · 02-15-2011, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your review makes some points that need to be made, but I think your format will keep people from realizing its brilliance. (It reads like notes you made to yourself, rather than complete sentences - too much white space, using 'B' to refer to the author. I wonder if you had this in a formatted document and copied it to Amazon, losing the formatting?)

JW:
It is what it is. Burridge spent decades creating it and I ripped him a new testament in a few hours. Being objective takes exponentially less time than Apologetics (I'm not afraid to call a Sephardic a Sephardic). The picture it gives is a University professor grading one of many papers, writing notes as he goes and than giving it back as incomplete in order for it to be redone as opposed to receiving a summary F:

1) His shielding of the original Gospel "Mark" from separate evaluation is dishonest. What related study (other than his previous one) ever lumped writings together to consider genre as a group?

2) It should be obvious now to the Objective that his Methodology is backwards (Apologetics). He selected criteria for matching based on what he thought would parallel between the Synoptics and the Sample. How else to explain that he does not have a single criterion which he concludes does not match? Disgusting.

3) Related to two he has no objectives to determine criteria such as what is distinctive between genre and what is the motivation for the issue of genre in the first place (historical evidence weight).

4) The worst part is even based on his criteria he still has more misses than matches but after superficial discussion consistently claims matches based on 1 or 2 supposed key words.

B's credibility is impeached and his conclusions are worthless. No one should refer to him as an authority. The related problem is the sad state of Christian Bible scholarship where he has not received the criticism he deserves.

Okay, so I've demonstrated here that no one has proven that "Mark's" genre is Bios. Next I'll compare "Mark" to Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better.

By the Way, thanks for the helpful vote (I assume that was from you and not Holding even though I quoted Holding as arguing that "Mark" is Greek Tragedy).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 02-16-2011, 07:37 AM

JW:
Continuing the assault on Burridge's What the Hell are the Gospels?, a comparison of "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar and Oedipus the King using Burridge's criteria to see which would parallel better:

1 - Opening Features

Title - Help identify genre

Quote:

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ

verses:

Quote:

Oedipus the King

verses:

Quote:

The Life of Julius Caesar

= O (Oedipus)

Prologue - Help identify genre

Quote:

1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;

1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

1:5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

1:6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

1:7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Verses:

Quote:

OEDIPUS
My children, latest generation born from Cadmus,
why are you sitting here with wreathed sticks
in supplication to me, while the city
fills with incense, chants, and cries of pain?*
Children, it would not be appropriate for me
to learn of this from any other source,
so I have come in person—I, Oedipus,
whose fame all men acknowledge. But you there,
old man, tell me—you seem to be the one
who ought to speak for those assembled here. 10 [10]
What feeling brings you to me—fear or desire?
You can be confident that I will help.
I shall assist you willingly in every way.
I would be a hard-hearted man indeed,
if I did not pity suppliants like these

.

Verses:

Quote:

1 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] In the course of his sixteenth year1 he lost his father. In the next consulate, having previously been nominated priest of Jupiter,2 he broke his engagement with Cossutia, a lady of only equestrian rank, but very wealthy, who had been betrothed to him before he assumed the gown of manhood, and married Cornelia, daughter of that Cinna who was four times consul, by whom he afterwards had a daughter Julia; and the dictator Sulla could by no means force him to put away his wife. 2 Therefore besides being punished by the loss of his priesthood,a his wife's dowry, and his family inheritances, Caesar was held to be one of the opposite party. He was accordingly forced to go into hiding, and though suffering from a severe attack of quartan ague, to change from one covert to another almost every night, and save himself from Sulla's detectives by bribes. But at last, through the good offices of the Vestal virgins and of his near kinsmen, Mamercus Aemilius and Aurelius Cotta, he obtained forgiveness. 3 Everyone knows that when Sulla had long p5held out against the most devoted and eminent men of his party who interceded for Caesar, and they obstinately persisted, he at last gave way and cried, either by divine inspiration or a shrewd forecast: "Have your way and take him; only bear in mind that the man you are so eager to save will one day deal the death blow to the cause of the aristocracy, which you have joined with me in upholding; for in this Caesar there is more than one Marius."

JW:
Note that "Mark" and "Oedipus" both have Prologues (backgrounds to the following narrative) while "Caesar" does not (the beginning is a homogenous part of the whole)

= O

So using Burridge's Opening Features group of criteria "Mark" clearly parallels better with the Greek Tragedy offering here.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

01-26-2011, 06:22 PM	#81
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	"Carthago delenda est" (I know it was Cato the Elder but it's still funny to interject it into every conversation, imitating the old man). Sorry. Strange sense of humor I guess

02-12-2011, 03:48 PM	#88
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your review makes some points that need to be made, but I think your format will keep people from realizing its brilliance. (It reads like notes you made to yourself, rather than complete sentences - too much white space, using 'B' to refer to the author. I wonder if you had this in a formatted document and copied it to Amazon, losing the formatting?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.