rob117

Your assumption that the gospels are undatable is simply false-- and this is an example of the weakness of the mythicist's historiography-- it must make assertions about the nature of the evidence that are empirically untrue.

The 70-100 dates for the synoptics, and the 90-110 date for John, are well established and based on both internal and external evidence.

First, all three of the synoptics have Jesus predicting, repeatedly, that the apocalypse was going to occur within "this generation"-- anyone writing much later than 90 would be making a joke out of themselves if they put that in the mouth of Jesus. John must have been written while the "beloved disciple" (probably some old guy in Asia Minor falsely claiming to have known Jesus) was either still alive or freshly dead-- again, can't be much later than 100.

As for external attestations, Matthew is quoted extensively and verbatim by Ignatius of Antioch around 110. Since Matthew used Mark, this means Mark must date before that time as well. John is attested by Papyrus Fragment P52, dating to around 125.

There's also the fact that Mark, the earliest gospel, does not make an explicit claim for Jesus' divinity. The later gospels do, culminating in John's "Logos" passages. This would indicate that the tendency of the tradition was towards deification of a man, rather than humanization of a god.

The "historical method" of MJers involves 1) cherry-picking quotations and interpreting them out of context, and 2) failing to engage with the previous two centuries of historical-critical scholarship. In fact, it's the very same methodology used by biblical apologists.

Sources:

Peter Kirby on Matthew

Peter Kirby on John

show_no_mercy

Only Matt and Mark have that prediction. And look at the context of when he says it. Jesus breaks the fourth wall in that context (Mark 13:14, Matt 24:15). So no, Jesus is not talking to the people in that scene. Jesus is talking to the reader.

Notice that Luke leaves that part out.

The last chapter of John probably wasn't written by the person who wrote the majority of the book.

No, he doesn't.

P52 is dated solely on paleographic grounds, which has about a 100 year span. So P52 could be dated anywhere from 100 - 200 CE.

Toto

Sounds like a good reason to bow out.

Exactly the point of contention.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

I never claimed that the mythicist case was strong. You've manufactured a point of contention.

I don't see the point of continuing.

Rick Sumner

I could, with a minimum of difficulty, date the entire corpus of the NT to the early to mid second century. If we're going to say that internal evidence is acceptable for one interpretation, we need to say it's acceptable for all interpretations.

We might quibble over which dating is more plausible, we cannot call one historiographically sound and the other not.

This is more of the same problem, just from the other side.

spin

Is that really what you're saying?? You have long been complaining about a lack of coherent historiography, but I guess you can now do history without such a coherent historiography.

You just don't seem to want to follow your own logic.

Oh, the irony.

"Noddy in Toyland" or "Alice in Wonderland"? Bedrock fact. Try a bit harder, will you?

Oh, it's not me: it's you! No, it's not me: it's you.

Is the myther doing history in the sense that the HJer is? Any text is a historical document, but one needs to establish what the "historical" in the statement means in each case. You don't do that.

You're fading into the unintelligble. What are you actually talking about when you mention "one side"? Are you still trying to assume that there are two sides of the same thing as you do with HJ and MJ and what they are working with?

That is a succinct way of paraphrasing my comment to your dredging up things like Siccius.

(This is funny coming from someone who had never looked at any but one of these works. And got all his new acquired knowledge from a few books.)
Utter wrong, of course. The Augustan statuary is hard evidence for the existence of Augustus as you have adroitly demonstrated. (You can also go and read up about the coins as evidence for the period and the man. And the inscriptions which acknowledge his existence.)

The (extra) irony is that you are too busy trying to cover your own ass to appreciate the irony.

Apparently without the same a priori commitment to the text.

You were the one who used the terms. So read this criticism yourself.

A few short weeks ago?? Time seems to be elastic for you. A few short weeks ago you were grumbling about historiography.

You've got it.



Does changing the perspective help the current issue of your bleating about MJers being just like those they oppose?

Sorry, where exactly did you do that again?

You can misunderstand my understanding all you like. It is only rhetoric on your part. You seem to want me to conform to your desires of how the dispute should go. Sadly the world doesn't bow to your wishes.

You are a little confused as to what is going on. Your harangue of the MJers is not something that is isolated. It has a context and that context includes our earlier miscommunications. Don't try the short term memory loss routine here.

Like your crap about bedrock facts and moving beyond them, missing the brunt of the discussion? Try to use your comprehension to answer this: how can you move beyond the bedrock facts until you have some?


spin

Doug Shaver

We don't know that. Ignatius doesn't say he's quoting anybody. He just said a lot of the same things Matthew said. For all we can tell just from reading both their works, Matthew could have been quoting Ignatius. Or they both could have been quoting, without attribution, somebody whom neither of them identifies.

Rick Sumner

This is the first thread where I've ever suggested the opposition does not have a coherent historiography. In the last thread on the subject (which, incidentally, was the first thread I ever had about historiography at all) it was far more general, and very much an inquiry into how to develop my own.

Your suggestion that this is some sort of long, ongoing inquiry for me is severely misguided. Comically so. You've just imagined a new me, since the old me (the one you held a few short weeks ago--the one who was always affirming the historicity of Jesus) turned out to be a figment of your imagination. Feel free to re-peruse the last thread on historiography to see your last straw man in action.

Show me the money spin. Show me this long history of discussing historiography. Show me a shred of evidence that I fit your newest imagined me.

I stand by what I said. <edit> Deliver or retract. <edit>.

rob117

-"Let the reader understand," need not necessarily be a quote of Jesus. It could just as easily be Mark inserting a gloss within Jesus' speech-- which is how the Anchor Bible volume describes it. Matthew is simply following Mark, so he inserts it as well. The gospel writers interject their own voices into the narrative at times (see John 21:25) so this is not unusual, and makes more sense than to claim that the gospels have Jesus breaking the fourth wall. These gospels are not written as plays; they present themselves as true history. Whether or not they actually got it right is another question, one that largely depends upon their date.

-Carrier's argument about Ignatius does not cite sources and is unconvincing. He makes certain assertions about how to determine the direction of a source quotation that are blatantly false upon first reading. He makes it sound as though the methods used to determine between authentic and inauthentic letters are arbitrary and stupid, when they are anything but. For someone who actually refers back to real scholars:
Peter Kirby on Ignatius

-Correct, the last chapter of John was probably not written by the original author. However, if you look at the context of the chapter, it presents the "Beloved Disciple" as having just recently died-- indeed, the chapter seems to have been added to the gospel in order to explain his death. This implies that the body of the gospel was composed when the "beloved disciple" was still living.

EDIT: Doug Shaver: What's more likely? Someone writing a letter quoting a narrative source, or someone writing a narrative source quoting a letter? To have Matthew and Ignatius both quoting an unknown source requires postulating a document that is otherwise unknown. Occam's Razor would argue against this.

EDIT: Richard Summers: Internal evidence is always applicable. Note that internal evidence does not mean, "Uncritical acceptance of what the texts say." It means, "Let's look at failed prophecies and geopolitical anachronisms in the text and see what date these elements point to. Additionally, internal evidence must be used in context, which I think both you and I would agree that mythicists do not do."

Toto

[staffwarn]Please cool things down a bit[/staffwarn]

spin

You seem to forget the previous riotous little thread about historiography.

It was quite an effort to go through your thoughts at historiography. If it wasn't long, it seem that way.

I'm glad to see that you stand by whatever it was you said. :wave:


spin