Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-19-2010, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Let's just say that if, in fact, 1Cor15 is original, it could still be read as having been made aware of in the spirit, as opposed to a real visit from Casper.

Yep. I think Price makes a good argument for interpolation, but even if Paul did write it, it doesn't prove what Christians want it to prove.

It would go long way to establishing that Paul saw himself as part of the Jerusalem church, a tradent of the Jesus resurrection appearances lore that preceeded him and on which priority he ranked low. It is clear that the early church had interest in making it seem that way.

Jiri

Doug Shaver · 05-20-2010, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

but even if Paul did write it, it doesn't prove what Christians want it to prove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It would go long way to establishing that Paul saw himself as part of the Jerusalem church, a tradent of the Jesus resurrection appearances lore that preceeded him and on which priority he ranked low. It is clear that the early church had interest in making it seem that way.

Good point. I was thinking too exclusively of Christological issues that Christians try to prove with it.

If it's authentic, it does lend support to orthodox claims of ecclesiastical authority. But then, on that point, its inconsistency with everything else Paul wrote lends support to interpolation.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-27-2010, 07:12 AM

Consider the following from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Peter's status as a witness to Christ appears to have been widely accepted in the early Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But that does not matter very much since the first century Christian church was very small. Is was not very difficult to convince a few ancient people from various cultures that all kinds of outlandish things were true. Even today, many people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and some people believe that the earth is flat. According to Rodney Stark in "The Rise of Christianity," there were only approximately 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In the article "The Impossible Faith," Christian apologist James Holding quotes well-known Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Do you have any grounds for thinking that Peter claimed to have witnessed things which in fact he knew he had not witnessed?

That presumes without sufficient evidence that 1) after Jesus rose from the dead, Peter saw and talked with him in a group setting, and that 2) it was actually Peter speaking for himself and not someone else speaking for him. If someone else spoke for Peter using his name, the motive could have been lying, a later interpolation, innocent but inaccurate revelations, or merely literary fiction.

Does Andrew have reason to believe that all of the writers of other religious books claimed to have witnessed things which in fact they knew they had not witnessed?

Other than Peter and possibly the author of the Gospel of John, who else claimed firsthand that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, and why should anyone believe Peter and John?

Wasn't John written much too late to be useful to Christians regarding testimonies about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances?

It is reasonable to assume that there were plenty of innocent but inaccurate revelations in ancient times. Even today, they are not uncommon among Pentecostals and Charismatics.

Consider the following comments that Spin made in another thread:

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=287411

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

Would you [brianscott1977] expect unusually high levels of manuscript attestation of any other religion in a christian society? Where did all these manuscripts you refer to come from other than Egypt, where there was a strong body of Christians at least from the time of Clement of Alexandria? These texts from Oxyrhynchus and Tebtunis reflect christian communities so what else should there be amongst these texts? Muslim texts?

As is, popular literature has no interest in the vast assortment of texts that actually came from Egypt, just the christian ones, usually for tendentious purposes such as that espoused by you. Yet, if you have a look at the range of texts, you'd know that your modern christian sources had shaped the data, misrepresenting the reality of those texts through lack of interest in the remaining texts, fragments of much of the important Greek literature of antiquity including previously lost works. You find numerous fragments of Plato, Herodotus, Thucydides, but you don't hear about them, because they are of no interest to the fixated christian, so they functionally don't exist. This allows christians to make statements like the one above.

There is nothing unusually high about the distribution of texts given their context.

The claims of historical corroboration would need some explanation as to what you are talking about because it is too vague. The earliest manuscripts are well after the reputed times (even P.52 which is tendentiously dated in the first half of the 2nd c., but arguably much later), so there is no way to connect them with the purported events they deal with.

I'm not a great believer in lies or fiction being the heart of any religion, but beliefs need not reflect reality and yet be neither lies nor fiction. In the Arian conflict would you call the Arians believers of lies and fiction? I should hope not. But I doubt that you would accept their central tenets as reflecting reality. Religious stories grow because believers in their efforts to clarify them expand on them. You can see modern day examples just by looking at apologists defending some of the more complex issues related to the religion by explaining how religious texts can make sense while appearing to be problematical, eg incoherent, contradictory, ahistorical or morally questionable.

Being a committed party doesn't help clear analysis.

I like what spin said.

What about extant copies of the writings of the early Christian church fathers? Are interpolations in their writings a reasonable possibility?

bacht · 05-27-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Peter's status as a witness to Christ appears to have been widely accepted in the early Church.

That presumes without sufficient evidence that 1) after Jesus rose from the dead, Peter saw and talked with him in a group setting, and that 2) it was actually Peter speaking for himself and not someone else speaking for him. If someone else spoke for Peter using his name, the motive could have been lying, a later interpolation, innocent but inaccurate revelations, or merely literary fiction.

I'm not sure Andrew was implying all that. There seems no doubt that Peter was considered a primary witness of something, though it's not clear what in the canonical epistles except for the Transfiguration, which could have been either during Jesus' earthly career or after.

Tradition says that Peter was martyred in Rome before the first Jewish revolt, so any material he wrote or dictated would have been early in the history of the church. If he really was a Galilean fisherman I doubt he would be proficient in writing Greek, though maybe a passable conversationalist. Mark was created in Koine according to most commentators.

Pseudonymity was well established already before the 1st C, the Christians just continued the practice. It could be argued that none of the earlier Jewish writings were attributed to their real authors, who were likely anonymous scribes. This would have been considered normal practice at the time, not "lying".

andrewcriddle · 05-27-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from another thread:
.................................................. ..................................................

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Do you have any grounds for thinking that Peter claimed to have witnessed things which in fact he knew he had not witnessed?

That presumes without sufficient evidence that 1) after Jesus rose from the dead, Peter saw and talked with him in a group setting, and that 2) it was actually Peter speaking for himself and not someone else speaking for him. If someone else spoke for Peter using his name, the motive could have been lying, a later interpolation, innocent but inaccurate revelations, or merely literary fiction.

Does Andrew have reason to believe that all of the writers of other religious books claimed to have witnessed things which in fact they knew they had not witnessed?

Other than Peter and possibly the author of the Gospel of John, who else claimed firsthand that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, and why should anyone believe Peter and John?

Wasn't John written much too late to be useful to Christians regarding testimonies about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances?

It is reasonable to assume that there were plenty of innocent but inaccurate revelations in ancient times. Even today, they are not uncommon among Pentecostals and Charismatics.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think you were answering my question.

I asked whether you had evidence that Peter knowingly made false claims about what he had witnessed. (This was in response to your suggestion that even if Mark had based his narrative on Peter's claims this would not necessarily mean that he was using eyewiness testimony, merely purported eyewitness testimony.)

Your response IIUC doesn't really seem to be replying to that issue.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 05-27-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Does Andrew have reason to believe that all of the writers of other religious books claimed to have witnessed things which in fact they knew they had not witnessed?

Certainly not in all cases. In some cases, eg Joseph Smith, author of the Book of Mormon, probably yes.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 05-27-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Does Andrew have reason to believe that all of the writers of other religious books claimed to have witnessed things which in fact they knew they had not witnessed?

Certainly not in all cases. In some cases, eg Joseph Smith, author of the Book of Mormon, probably yes.

Andrew Criddle

You are probably NOT a Mormon so you can QUICKLY and EASILY identify obvious LIES or errors of Joseph Smith or of those who do not support your brand of Christianity.

But, what about the author of gMatthew who wrote that Peter attempted to go to Jesus who walked on the sea during a storm?

What about the author of gMark who claimed Peter, James and John saw Jesus transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elias?

What about the author of gLuke who wrote that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary to produce Jesus?

What about the author of gJohn that claimed Jesus, the Word, was God and the Creator and was eating FISH after the resurrection?

What about the author of Acts who wrote that Jesus, after the resurrection, ascended through the clouds?

And what about a Pauline writer who claimed that he saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead?

So, as you have named Joseph Smith, I will also mention that the authors of the Gospels and the Pauline writers made statements that were ALL likely to be False.

mountainman · 05-27-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Other than Peter and possibly the author of the Gospel of John, who else claimed firsthand that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead,

There are lots and lots of Gnostic accounts. For one which features great melodrama, lightning in the mountains, pyrotechnix and the thunderous booming voice of the risen Jesus:

"Listen to my words that I may speak to you.

Why are you asking me?

See NHC Peter, the author of The Letter of Peter which he sent to Philip (NHC 8.2)

Johnny Skeptic · 05-28-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Do you have any grounds for thinking that Peter claimed to have witnessed things which in fact he knew he had not witnessed?

The authorship of the First Epistle of Peter is questionable. If someone else was speaking for Peter using Peter's name, obviously Peter did not claim anything firsthand. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If that is what happened, who knows what the unknown author's motives were, and where he got his information from? Some possible motives are lying, interpolation, innocent but inaccurate revelations, or merely literary fiction.

Regarding the date of the composition of the First Epistle of Peter, Wikipedia says "estimates for the date of composition range from 75 to 112 AD."

If we assume a date of 95 A.D., by that time, it would have been difficult for people to check out the author's claims even if they had known who he was.

Other than Peter, what eyewitness testimonies do you have regarding Jesus' post-resurrection appearances?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Peter's status as a witness to Christ appears to have been widely accepted in the early Church.

But that does not matter very much since the first century Christian church was very small. In antiquity, it was not very difficult to convince a few ancient people from various cultures that all kinds of outlandish things were true. Even today, many people believe that men have not landed on the moon, and some people believe that the earth is flat. According to Rodney Stark in "The Rise of Christianity," there were only approximately 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In the article "The Impossible Faith," Christian apologist James Holding quotes well-known Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire."

Johnny Skeptic · 05-28-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

There seems no doubt that Peter was considered a primary witness of something, though it's not clear what in the canonical epistles except for the Transfiguration, which could have been either during Jesus' earthly career or after.

What firsthand biblical evidence suggests that Peter was an eyewitness of something?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.