Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-20-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Whiston does have a footnote to this statement (#21):

I have never observed elsewhere, that in the Jewish government women were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of justice. None of our copies of the Pentateuch say a word of it. It is very probable, however, that this was the exposition of the scribes and Pharisees, and the practice of the Jews in the days of Josephus.

Maybe what we are seeing here is Josephus' opinion of women in general - i.e. grouped with slave-servants who can't be trusted an inch, because females are impulsive and not as serious as a man like himself. I'm sure his household was a joy to live in.

It is my understanding that various Jewish sages treated their spouses as anything from close confidants to stay at home babysitters held to strict standards similar to what the Taliban impose on women in general.

DCH

Josephus may be idiosyncratic, but he is contemporary with the Gospels.

From the 3rd century CE we have Tosefta Sanhedrin 5:2 dealing with persons who because of their occupation are invalid witnesses

Quote:

And Sages say, "When they have another profession, lo they are invalid."
Under what circumstances ?
In the case of testimony covering the sanctification of the month, the intercalation of the month, and cases involving property or capital punishment.
But for testimony which a woman is valid to give, they too are valid.

This implies that women cannot give valid testimony in many but not all cases.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 07-20-2011, 12:11 PM

It is more likely that these represent different aspects of Christian evangelism. The passage in Paul (probably an interpolation) claims that there were appearances to some well known leaders in the church, along with an anonymous 500, starting with Peter. The purpose here is clearing to establish relative authority based on who Jesus liked more and appeared to first. This seems to be a spiritual, post-Easter appearance.

The gospels were written for communities in which women were a vital part, and they tend to reflect the role of women in society.

TedM · 07-20-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is more likely that these represent different aspects of Christian evangelism. The passage in Paul (probably an interpolation) claims that there were appearances to some well known leaders in the church, along with an anonymous 500, starting with Peter. The purpose here is clearing to establish relative authority based on who Jesus liked more and appeared to first. This seems to be a spiritual, post-Easter appearance.

The gospels were written for communities in which women were a vital part, and they tend to reflect the role of women in society.

IMO the 'criterion of embarrassment' includes these kinds of things: something that hurts the authority of one's message is 'embarrassing'. Of course, in this case it is an EXCLUSION based on embarrassment, in the Paul passage, which many believe was a creed, which may imply a fairly well-accepted saying among believers.

It may well be that by the time the gospel writers wrote, the embarrassment attached to the tradition had subsided, or was seen to be minor enough to disregard in favor of adding more 'history' to the story. No doubt people were clamoring for more history.

Toto · 07-20-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is more likely that these represent different aspects of Christian evangelism. The passage in Paul (probably an interpolation) claims that there were appearances to some well known leaders in the church, along with an anonymous 500, starting with Peter. The purpose here is clearing to establish relative authority based on who Jesus liked more and appeared to first. This seems to be a spiritual, post-Easter appearance.

The gospels were written for communities in which women were a vital part, and they tend to reflect the role of women in society.

IMO the 'criterion of embarrassment' includes these kinds of things: something that hurts the authority of one's message is 'embarrassing'. Of course, in this case it is an EXCLUSION based on embarrassment, in the Paul passage, which many believe was a creed, which may imply a fairly well-accepted saying among believers.

What are you saying here? How can an exclusion fit in with the Criterion of Embarrassment, which says that something, although embarrassing, was too well known to leave out?

Quote:

It may well be that by the time the gospel writers wrote, the embarrassment attached to the tradition had subsided, or was seen to be minor enough to disregard in favor of adding more 'history' to the story. No doubt people were clamoring for more history.

Again, what are you saying? Was it embarrassing or not? Why should you think anything in the gospels is either 1) historical OR 2) embarrassing?

TedM · 07-20-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What are you saying here? How can an exclusion fit in with the Criterion of Embarrassment, which says that something, although embarrassing, was too well known to leave out?

If that's what it says then it can't. I guess I was expanding the definition.

Quote:

It may well be that by the time the gospel writers wrote, the embarrassment attached to the tradition had subsided, or was seen to be minor enough to disregard in favor of adding more 'history' to the story. No doubt people were clamoring for more history.

Again, what are you saying? Was it embarrassing or not? Why should you think anything in the gospels is either 1) historical OR 2) embarrassing?

It's tricky. I think the 'creed' is significant, and that in and of itself has implications worthy of consideration.

spin · 07-20-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you read it in context, it does. Why did it c[o]me before widespread acceptance of Mark, do you think?

Not sure what you are replying to. I already said why I thought it came earlier.

Quote:

It also mentions an appearance to 500 people--amazing!, which is to be found nowhere else, so if it were early, you'd expect it to have been astounding enough to have been picked up by others, but it wasn't. I'd say therefore it was a lot later.

No, a later tradition that's even better would be more likely to have survived and added to the existing manuscripts. Somehow the 500 never caught on.

Biggest appearance and most audacious con. It didn't catch on because it was obviously not early. The writers of Mt and Lk would have had terminal wet dreams over that one. You can be as coy as you like, but it plainly wasn't available in the christian tradition before the time of the later synoptics.

TedM · 07-20-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Not sure what you are replying to. I already said why I thought it came earlier.

No, a later tradition that's even better would be more likely to have survived and added to the existing manuscripts. Somehow the 500 never caught on.

Biggest appearance and most audacious con. It didn't catch on because it was obviously not early. The writers of Mt and Lk would have had terminal wet dreams over that one. You can be as coy as you like, but it plainly wasn't available in the christian tradition before the time of the later synoptics.

When do you think it was interpolated, and why wasn't it added into Mt, Lk, and John?

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It's all theory and subjective.

So is E = mc²

This may be so in the field of physics, but the 2nd greatest statement of theoretical relativity in the field of BC&H is imo the identity equation between the two authors ... Arius of Alexandria = Leucius Charinus.

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The gospels were written for communities in which women were a vital part, and they tend to reflect the role of women in society.

As I understand it, this "Criterion of Embarrassment" is more or less restricted in its application only to the books of the canonical new testament, is this correct? I have not seen it used in application to the analysis of the Gnostic literature. And yet quite clearly, for issues directly relating to the role of women within the "Early Christian Church", for example, the role of Thecla in the Gnostic "Acts of Paul" was an embarrassment to the followers of the canonical gospels.

spin · 07-20-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Biggest appearance and most audacious con. It didn't catch on because it was obviously not early. The writers of Mt and Lk would have had terminal wet dreams over that one. You can be as coy as you like, but it plainly wasn't available in the christian tradition before the time of the later synoptics.

When do you think it was interpolated, and why wasn't it added into Mt, Lk, and John?

What do you think it means that not one of the gospels used this astounding factoid? Perhaps it was just too insignificant for them to use.

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

07-20-2011, 12:11 PM	#72
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It is more likely that these represent different aspects of Christian evangelism. The passage in Paul (probably an interpolation) claims that there were appearances to some well known leaders in the church, along with an anonymous 500, starting with Peter. The purpose here is clearing to establish relative authority based on who Jesus liked more and appeared to first. This seems to be a spiritual, post-Easter appearance. The gospels were written for communities in which women were a vital part, and they tend to reflect the role of women in society.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.