Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 04-21-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

All very well and good to imply that that's a general tendency of Agapios. Fine. But that's no answer as to why.

Well, that would answer the question: "Why did he remove this stuff from the TF?", but it wouldn't answer the question: "Why did he have this general tendency?".

I think you should stop callin Agapius the "earliest" version. After all we have older quotations from other writers.

And excuse me if I don't read over the 25p discussion you had with spin et al :Cheeky:, but setting aside the case for Agapius being secondary (which I think is clearly the better option) I'm curious if you answered (or how you would answer) questions like these in the thread:

1. How do you explain that the TF doesn't fit in the context?
2. How do you explain that Josephus would describe someone who was crucified as a seditionist as good and wise to a Roman audience?
3. Why on earth would Josephus write something like "[Jesus] was perhaps the christ"?

spin · 04-21-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Though I'm not disagreeing with you, why are we trawling through Agapius again? He's a 10th c. Arabic writer who has come across the TF in translation and who has shown a propensity to de-"marvelize" his sources (see K. Olson, read 3rd last paragraph if short on time). Scholars believe that Agapius used a source that was available to the chronicler Michael, but there is nothing in Michael's presentation of the same material to suggest that the de-marvelized version of Agapius reflects an early tradition (see my post).

At the end of the day, it still remains very odd that Agapios should remove -- or repeatedly "de-marvelize" -- "marvels" stuff. All very well and good to imply that that's a general tendency of Agapios. Fine. But that's no answer as to why. I still don't see why Agapios's being earlier than Michael might not be a key factor here. Hence the apparent differences in his materials. This factor may not explain all the instances where we see differences between Agapios and Michael. But it might explain a few.

Now I understand Olson's claim that Michael and Agapios may both be using the same or a similar source in many instances. But when the sources they use seem especially far apart, as in the case of the TF, sheer chronology might really be a factor, and Agapios is, after all, two hundred years earlier than Michael.

It's not irrelevant in this context that Olson is candid enough to say "it
seems that Agapius does indeed omit or tone down references to Jesus'
miracle-working during his lifetime. I do not know why this is". Well...............yes! I've read the suggestion that Agapios is in the business of toning all this down for his Muslim patron(s) ..................... a Bishop?

Let's just cite Olson:

[T2]I find that, where we can compare Agapius' text to that of the parallels, it
seems that Agapius does indeed omit or tone down references to Jesus'
miracle-working during his lifetime. I do not know why this is. It seems
odd that Agapius seems to omit specific references to Jesus miracles, but
not all the material that has to do with Jesus' divine nature. Ernst Bammel
has argued that since Agapius' text was composed in a Muslim environment
some of the differences between his version and the received text may be
understood as due to Muslim-Christian debates (e.g., "and to die" against
the Muslim belief that Jesus had not in fact died). Alice Whealey adds that
Agapius' work was dedicated to a Muslim patron.[/T2]
Olson doesn't have all the answers and admits it. He does give indicators that should be considered and not simple skipped over with an appeal to Agapius being a bishop.

The story that a lad would tell amongst his drinking buddies will probably be presented differently in other circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

One could make an argument that Agapios indulged in this "de-marvelizing" as a prevailing editorial habit. But it seems a forced argument.

In it he just seems to be a precocious poster boy for the hysterical jesusers. They de-marvelize stories and accept what's left as kosher. You should feel at home with what Agapius was doing with his sources for that's what your pundits do. So if it seems forced that he should de-marvelize....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

It just seems likelier that Agapios is giving us, instead, a rare snapshot of the TF at a time before it was "warmed over" by over-zealous Christians.

These likelihoods that people produce in such a context should be held up for what they are: gutless noise. The 10th c. Agapius is the odd one out, when all the rest seem to agree with the Eusebian TF, so we brush them all aside and close our eyes and believe that Agapius alone had a mainline to the good juice.

But there are interesting small agreements between Michael and Agapius that do suggest that they were using the same basic source (going back again to my table):

the many became his disciples,
they condemned him to be crucified and die
three days (not third day)

Would you like to think that the variations they share are merely coincidental, while the de-marvelized version somehow is a reflection of the earliest source? Do you think Michael was not using the same source as Agapius?

This appears to be the relationship between the texts in the table:

Code:

                          ,-- Michael
                          |
- Eusebius --- Jerome ----|
                          |
                          '-- Agapius

The similarities suggest the same source used by Michael and Agapius, which has a feature found in Jerome's version but not in Eusebius. If you agree with this relationship, how would you explain Agapius's unique features other than to attribute them to the work of Agapius himself (or someone before the time of Agapius who reworked the source)? If you don't agree with the relationship, how would you construct it and why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I find Carlson's argument more convincing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The only reason I can see for regurgitating Agapius is because christian apologists have found it helpful for their religious needs. I don't see why non-believers need to toe this line.

Ad hom.

Your toeing the line is certainly not transparently based on any evidence.

maryhelena · 04-22-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

O.K., show me where these earlier thinkers thought up "Love your enemies". And while you're at it, don't put words into my mouth: I view remarks like "love your enemies" as more likely Jesus's than not because of descriptions like "wise" and "virtuous" in the earliest shortest least embellished version of a pagan description of Jesus well outside the Bible, not because of any similarities to some Norman Thomas speech in 1948.

Chaucer

To equate "wise" and "virtuous" with "love your enemies" is an abomination of any morality that seeks to uphold rationality. Chaucer, this is a travesty of a humanist approach to living a life with dignity and worth. I've no time for such a nonsense idea.

"Wise" and "virtuous" suggests that Jesus may have had a striking and an original philosophy of some kind, and sure enough, we find one when we drill down to less primary sources. Now, you may deem "Love your enemies" as an abomination of morality. Even I might do the same, just for the sake of argument. -- In fact, I'd probably choose instead the alleviation of unnecessary suffering as the highest virtue.

But that's not the right question here. The right question is whether or not any contemporaries may have viewed it as in some way virtuous, not whether or not we do. And I think the answer to that is not so easy. They may have, they may have not, however some of us may feel today.

Chaucer

So, you admit the question of 'love your enemies' could be problematic 2000 years ago as it is today....why then, attribute such a problematic idea to a "wise" and "virtuous" man. Why use a truly problematic idea as an identifier for your vision of Jesus? An idea that immediately draws argument not compliance.

Yes, someone had a "striking and an original philosophy of some kind", a philosophy of Mind as opposed to a philosophy of Matter, an amoral philosophy in contrast to a moral philosophy. But that someone is not JC, JC is only the mouthpiece, the literary construct designed to give voice to new ideas.

(and no, it's not a question of choosing between either code - both a moral code and an amoral code are required for living rationally.)

But philosophy does not drop out of thin air. It is a reflection of the human situation at various historical times. Insights gained through human and historical circumstances. So, it's back to history...and history tells us that there were two men, one a philosopher and the other a historian. Philo and Josephus. Two Jewish men with the wherewithal to give a kick start to a new perspective, a new outlook, on living human life at it's full potential.

Yep, unfortunately, the new philosophical 'baby' was stillborn............................and that's another story.....

- but perhaps a 'rebirth' or resurrection might be on the cards....

Chaucer · 04-22-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

"Wise" and "virtuous" suggests that Jesus may have had a striking and an original philosophy of some kind, and sure enough, we find one when we drill down to less primary sources. Now, you may deem "Love your enemies" as an abomination of morality. Even I might do the same, just for the sake of argument. -- In fact, I'd probably choose instead the alleviation of unnecessary suffering as the highest virtue.

But that's not the right question here. The right question is whether or not any contemporaries may have viewed it as in some way virtuous, not whether or not we do. And I think the answer to that is not so easy. They may have, they may have not, however some of us may feel today.

Chaucer

So, you admit the question of 'love your enemies' could be problematic 2000 years ago as it is today....why then, attribute such a problematic idea to a "wise" and "virtuous" man.

Because for some it might still be virtuous. This is Josephus's description, not mine (if we take Agapios as being accurate Josephus). I see no reason to suppose that there was one lockstep uniform response to any philosophical proposition back then, any more than there is today. After all, back then we already have some crucifying Jesus and others glorifying him!!! Does that suggest any agreement????!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why use a truly problematic idea as an identifier for your vision of Jesus? An idea that immediately draws argument not compliance.

Problematic or not, "Love your enemies" is the one Jesus remark for which no one else in human history has ever been given ownership. Like it or not, if there's any proposition with possibly Jesus's own mindprint on it, it's "love your enemies".

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, someone had a "striking and an original philosophy of some kind", a philosophy of Mind as opposed to a philosophy of Matter, an amoral philosophy in contrast to a moral philosophy. But that someone is not JC, JC is only the mouthpiece, the literary construct designed to give voice to new ideas.

(and no, it's not a question of choosing between either code - both a moral code and an amoral code are required for living rationally.)

Where/Who do you think the remark "Love your enemies" comes from?

Chaucer

Chaucer · 04-22-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But there are interesting small agreements between Michael and Agapius that do suggest that they were using the same basic source (going back again to my table):

the many became his disciples,
they condemned him to be crucified and die
three days (not third day)

Would you like to think that the variations they share are merely coincidental, while the de-marvelized version somehow is a reflection of the earliest source? Do you think Michael was not using the same source as Agapius?

This appears to be the relationship between the texts in the table:

Code:

                          ,-- Michael
                          |
- Eusebius --- Jerome ----|
                          |
                          '-- Agapius

The similarities suggest the same source used by Michael and Agapius, which has a feature found in Jerome's version but not in Eusebius. If you agree with this relationship, how would you explain Agapius's unique features other than to attribute them to the work of Agapius himself (or someone before the time of Agapius who reworked the source)? If you don't agree with the relationship, how would you construct it and why?

Finally, a telling argument. Thank you.

O.K.: I would say it is _possible_ that Michael may be closer to any source Agapios was using than Agapios himself. Let's look at Michael's version --

"In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to
call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of
truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He
was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the
principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to
the cross and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love
him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God
had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things [as these]. And the
people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this]
day." -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/16163

No question that this still has certain odd phrases like "if it is fitting for us to call him a man". But the exact translation of "glorious deeds" is in fact "paradoxical deeds", which is more in keeping with Josephus anyway. And we still don't have Josephus here with an outright declaration "He was the Messiah". So this is still less overtly Christianized than the ms. version.

We're left then with a telling question: How possible is it that Josephus would have remarked "if it is fitting for us to call him a man"? Is it barely possible that something ironic is intended (I don't know, I'm just wondering)? If something ironic is intended, then "a teacher of truth" may have some historic validity and be also ironic to a slight extent, meaning that "Love your enemies" could bear out this picture of Jesus the historical "teacher of truth". But if we take these phrases as doggone serious, then, since their authenticity could then be in question, "Love your enemies" might come from somewhere/someone else.

Query: Where do you think "Love your enemies" comes from? It certainly originates in the physical Jesus documents with no known precedent. How come it's there first?

Chaucer

Vivisector · 04-22-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Let's see. Josephus is a Jew and also an enculturated Roman.

Jews had an idiosyncratic definition of "christ", which Josephus for some reason did not explain to his pagan audience. The Greek educated Romans would have been confused that Josephus called some guy "the ointment".

Quote:

Euripides, "Hippolytus" 486:

Φαίδρα
πότερα δὲ χριστὸν ἢ ποτὸν τὸ φάρμακον;

Phaedra
This drug, is it an ointment or a potion?

Which is why Josephus doesn't describe any of the other "christs" in the LXX with the title "christ", but uses the actual word for "anointed".

Of course, this makes perfect sense if these two mentions of "christ" in Josephus were not written by Josephus, but were written by a Christian who isn't concerned about confusing his audience.

If Josephus were embarrassed - considering the context in which he wrote - about (a) some Jews' messianic beliefs and/or (b) the fact that this Jesus guy was called Christ, he'd be on the horns of a dilemma, wouldn't he?

Cheers,

V.

Toto · 04-22-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...

Query: Where do you think "Love your enemies" comes from? It certainly originates in the physical Jesus documents with no known precedent. How come it's there first?

Chaucer

The gospels were not first.

Was Jesus the only one who said "Love your enemies"? on the Straight Dope message board 2006 cites Love your enemy with similar sentiments from all the world religions.

But even if this precise saying is unique to the gospels, how does it help your case? It's a Cynic type saying. It's not the sort of saying that would be reported in Josephus as "wise." :huh:

maryhelena · 04-22-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Where/Who do you think the remark "Love your enemies" comes from?

Chaucer

[T2]Matthew 5:43-45 (New International Version, ©2011)

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.[/T2]

Where did 'love your enemies' come from - the pen of whoever put these words into the mouth of the literary gospel JC figure...

Who? - is a side issue. It's the words themselves that have to be understood within a rational context.

Within the gMatthew context, the 'love your enemies' statement is contrasted with "hate your enemy'. To assume that this means that one rejects the 'hate your enemy' and instead practices 'love your enemy' makes nonsense out of any code worthy of the name of morality. Thus, it's not a rejection that is being proposed - ditch the 'hate your enemy' and take up the 'love your enemy'. It's a case of a secondary context in which 'love your enemy' can be a rational action. Mind and Matter - two codes of action that are required to live well. Morality, a code for social interaction where breaches of morality, of others, and oneself, are not excused but called to account and justice upheld. Within an intellectual context, an amoral code allows the intellect to function without constraints of morality. The mind is free from the 'Law' of morality, from the necessity of striving to uphold principles or values. Intellectual freedom, the freedom to create, and to destroy ideas, is a context in which 'love your enemy' can have some relevance. As in an above post.........

The only context in which love your enemies has any value is within an intellectual context. Your enemy is that new idea that you can’t stand, it’s out to overturn everything you ever valued, everything you ever stood for - but that enemy idea is relentless and wins the day on an intellectual battlefield - so, embrace the enemy, love the enemy, for by doing so intellectual evolution can made progress and bring benefits, values, with it.

There is a dualism in the gMatthew context - the rain falls on the good and the bad, the sun shines on the good and the bad...Mind and Matter - the two elements of our human nature that function according to two very different codes of operation....

Vivisector · 04-22-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Where/Who do you think the remark "Love your enemies" comes from?

Straight from the "for what it's worth" department, Bultmann seems to think it went all the way back to Jesus his-own-self.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874 · 04-22-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Problematic or not, "Love your enemies" is the one Jesus remark for which no one else in human history has ever been given ownership. Like it or not, if there's any proposition with possibly Jesus's own mindprint on it, it's "love your enemies"....

It is the AUTHOR of the story who wrote "Love your enemies" and you DON'T even know who the author was.

And secondly you have merely ASSUMED Jesus did exist and assumed he said said "Love your enemies" when you ACTUALLY don't have a shred of credible evidence from antiquity for what you say.

The ASSUMPTION Jesus existed and said anything in the NT has no real value for historical purposes.

And further it was NOT a man who said "Love your enemies" in the NT. It was some kind of Ghost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...Where/Who do you think the remark "Love your enemies" comes from?

Chaucer

We KNOW where you got it from. You got it from SOURCES WE CAN'T TRUST.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.