Steve Weiss

I know that you can't and neither can anyone else.

Steve Weiss

Since I find myself in general agreement with you I don't want to belabor the point, but one cannot gauge the intentions of unknown authors. Furthermore, even if we were certain of who the authors of ancient works were, it would not be possible to assess their intentions and what they knew or did not know. The writing that was left to us has to be evaluated based upon the content, and that content is entirely without factual merit.

It is apparent from this direction of this thread that nonsense games are being played by some of the participants who are either theists, agnostics or just time-wasters, so I will no longer engage them.

Zeichman

I NEVER said Doherty said Kloppenborg claimed Q1 was oral. Doherty suggested that it may be oral, undermining a necessary principle for Kloppenborg's hypothesis, which he, in essence, affirms. An oral Q1 would undermine essentially every aspect of Kloppenborg's hypothesis, in addition to being a worthless statement. I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the hypothesis because he mentions this possibility at a point that it isn't necessary to what he's arguing, just making an aside. If he's making an aside that would undermine everything that he's said in the process, I think we can agree that he probably doesn't know what he's talking about, or is simply a misleading liar. I'm not convinced he's the latter. Also, I don't appreciate your patronization, especially when you're just speculating.
Again, I know this, so please stop acting so condescending toward me. I'm not a naive child, regardless of what you may think.

Which would be great if by changing the hypothesis he didn't fall into the very criticisms of Tuckett, Betz and others, most of whom misunderstood the hypothesis to be one of genetic dependence. Many, but not all, of the the criticisms launched at the cynic hypothesis have been straw men, because of this misunderstanding. Doherty modifies the hypothesis to this particular misunderstanding. Again, either he hasn't read many secondary resources on the cynic hypothesis, or is a misleading liar.
The distinction is not one between Christian and Jewish (religious), but between Jewish and gentile (ethnic).
The two-gospel hypothesis, for the third time.

I don't believe he's right, and something that can also be said of the far majority of NT scholars. This appeal historical apositivism is not worthy of response, since I have been acknowledging the fact that we're working with hypotheticals and hypotheses this whole time.

Textbook, example of the equivocation fallacy. Of course I didn't mean that when I said what "he feels" a particular way. He doesn't argue to convince others, from what I recall. My understanding is that he's citing things to explain why he believes what he does.

I'm doubtful that particular one was. Lee Strobel and Doherty are examples of the opposite, but I'd hardly call their stuff scholarship.

Like the ones I suggested above. I do hope in your next response you'll do me the courtesy of treating me like an adult. I don't know that I've done anything to deserve otherwise.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Chris,

You seem not to be aware of my book the Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk). If you read it, you will know that I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of South Florida.

Since you were kind enough to ask about my Greek education ευχαριστώ πολύ: I have read ancient Greek literature in translation extensively for the past 35 years. I have been to Greece 8 times and speak enough modern Greek to get along. My wife who is Greek, studied ancient Greek for 5 years in school, and if there is a passage that I have a problem understanding, she kindly helps me.

While an extensive knowledge of ancient Greek is certainly a wonderful thing, I note that 99.9% of all biblical exegesis is not in, about or related to ancient Greek.

I tend to agree with your quote from Chris Heard from your blog

Here's a rhetorical question: who understands an Akira Kurasawa film better -- a Japanese person who speaks fluent Japanese, but hardly watches films -- or a film buff who doesn't understand a word of Japanese, but has seen every Kurasawa film subtitled twice and many other Japanese films, and has read extensively in the field of Japanese cinema.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

spin

On that score you are clueless.

spamandham

I suppose that's mostly true.

spin

Still unable to do anything else but assume conclusions.

Righteous indignation is the realm of the religionist. Scholarship entails knowing the limits of what can be said.


spin

mountainman

The veracity or otherwise of OT and NT books and stories
needs to be separately examined because, as everyone will
agree, the origins of these two sets of texts are essentially
derived from two different epochs in history, separated by
many hundreds of years.

The OT was available to Greek readers with effect from 250 BCE.
It was the book of the Juadaic tradition. In all likelihood, perhaps
in the library of Alexandria, is was available to be viewed and
copied over 500 years before Constantine. In all likelihood also,
IMO, the Dhamma of the Buddha would have been similarly here
available, for reading and copying from the Greek. (Only the
Indians did the translation themselves, to Greek).

The mainstream claim is that the NT shows an evolution of
literary origination across the first three centuries, because
this is what its first "historian" Eusebius, in the rule of the
Constantine, set forth.

However it is more than likely that Constantine fabricated the
entire NT out of extant "wisdom sayings" (Essenic philosophy)
and a novel plot, in which the supreme god of the observable
universe is incarnated to be crucified by the power of the Roman
Empire. The obviousness of the propaganda, and polemic is clear:
"Dont f**k with the Roman Empire".

This fabrication occurred in the fourth century, and to be
specific during the time period 312 CE to 324 CE in careful
and planned coordination with Constantine's rise to supreme
imperial power --- total and absolute (military) control.


Arnaldo Momigliano wrote:

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”“

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987)

It was no miracle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wink. Wink. supporter, protector, legislator.

Constantine is described as "a brigand" and
"a ward irresponsible for his own actions" by
his contemporary historian.


The track record of the appearance of christianity in 312 CE
is a record of pagan robbery and plunder, the appropriation of
pagan temples and lands, the burning and destruction of pagan
literature (such as the indictment by a letter of Constantine in
325 CE, calling for the buring of the writings of Porphyry, the
burning of the writings of that other "PORPHYRIAN" Arius!, and
the death penalty by beheading for any innocent person caught
secreting these writings).

If you have the stomach to read a complete list of citations
which demark the appearance of the new (and strange) Roman
(not Hellenic) religious order called "christianity", then I suggest
you have a casual glance through the list prepared by
Vlasis Rassias on this page

Welcome to the club. No one here appears will to entertain
the consideration of the logical implication of Eusebian fiction
in regard to the NT corpus of literature.

The logical implications of using the Eusebian fiction postulate
are simply these:

1) There was a different and as yet unknown history for the period
from 0 - 312 CE in which "the tribe of christians" did not exist.

2) The pseudo-history (of Eusebius) could only have been presented
to the world (and its different unknown history - see above) at the
earliest time - during or after the life of the author of the fiction.
(Eusebius lives c.260-340 CE)

3) At the time that the pseudo-history was presented to the world
there would have been a very very large and vociferous controversy,
especially with the academic elite, and their networks, over the
VERACITY of CLAIMS. (See the "Arian Controversy", we are told its
all about theology, even though Arius' words "There was a time when
he was not" may be interpretted to mean "before Constantine".

4) The implementation would have required imperial initiative, and
imperial support. The Council of Nicaea. Constantine uses the new
Roman religion to plunder the pagans. Using it as his chosen path,
he sets up opposition writings for destruction. The regime after
Constantine continues the plunder, but extends it to more killing
and execution of Hellenic philosophers, and other "heretics". The
above reference to Vlasis Rassias provides plenty of examples.


Constantine is the first person on the planet to bind the old set
of writings (used to simply lend a bit of substantiation to the "new")
to the new set of writings (NT). He did this c.330 CE, and we have
his letter instructing this be done, of course to Eusebius.

In 361 CE we have the emperor Julian able to speak as an indigenous
Hellenic, not as a Constantinian convert to "christianity". He slams
Constantine as a breaker of traditions. He slams the NT as:
"A fabrication, and a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

The identification of NT "fiction" implies the last 1700 years
of scholarship has been "hookwinked" by a supreme imperial
mafia thug dictator called Constantine, and his sponsored
extremely clever literacist, rhetoritician, historiographer and
propagandist Eusebius of Caesarea.

Everyone thinks this is therefore a "conspiracy theory".
However it is a political theory of history, which includes
the invention of "christianity" in the fourth century, by
a regime which held absolute political and military power
in Rome from 312 CE, and in the whole Roman empire from
324-337 under Constantine, and with the exception of a
few years under Julian (360-362), sufficient time during
the rest of the century (and later) until the new religious
order (established only at the Council of Nicaea) had
self-perpetuated itself in the political state (ie: independent
of Constantine).

There is a precedent for this sort of thing going down in
history. One hundred years before Nicaea, in the formation
of the Iranian (Sassanian) empire by Ardashir, King of Kings,
wielders of the power of life and death -- dictator.

Steve Weiss

Very useful and comprehensive contribution. Bravo! At last someone telling it like it is.

The reason that I do not separate an analysis of the OT from the NT is two fold. Firstly, for Christians and Muslims, the two books are integrated into a single volume, and the NT is considered the continuation, fulfillment or consequence of the OT. Secondly, the god referred to in the OT and NT is the same entity (though with a somewhat different personality) dealing with the same Semitic people. Since the NT rests upon the OT, discrediting the veracity of the OT does the same to the NT, just as derailing the engine of a train pulls the trailing cars off the track along with it. Since not one story of the OT is true to the facts or is even possible, both the OT and NT fall by the wayside as highly exaggerated fictional accounts not to be taken seriously.

An additional factor also seems to be frequently overlooked. Historians often write with the sponsorship of political patrons just as these wealthy and powerful patrons have supported the arts and sciences. Should these authors depart substantially from what is acceptable to the powers that be, dire consequences could follow like death and the burning of books. Thus, there is a bias towards conformity to accepted norms that outweigh concerns for objectivity. Every author writes for an audience, and historians are no less mindful of this fact than are novelists. The "bible" (take your choice of the particular version) is not only a work of fiction, it is a very effective propaganda piece, perhaps unequaled in history in this regard.

One last point. Only after 1500 did book ownership and literacy spread to the masses, so the Church was the soul interpreter of the bible until then, and it wasn't much after this printing revolution that there was a Protestant Reformation and a consequent Counter-reformation. During this period ownership of a bible by an unauthorized person was a capital offense, so free investigation and discussion of the bible was somewhat limited. Given the mindset of most people and apologists it still is.

Ted Hoffman

Incorrect. Doherty at no point suggests that Q1 may be oral. He writes in p177:
[Emphasis mine]
His main point is that Q1 is foreign. He talks about the point of origin of Q1 or the source of Q1, not its form. About its form, whether oral or written, he does not indicate he favours either. I challenge you to cite him suggesting that Q1 was oral. Otherwise, please withdraw your claim.
Secondly, Kloppenborg's hypothesis is not the fundamental conceptual and methodological grid of D's analysis of Q: he also refer's to Mack and others. As such, whether or not D understands K's hypothesis cannot be used as a litmus test in determining the correctness of D's analysis of Q. Their focal point is the stratification of Q, about which they are in agreement.
You misread Doherty.
Are you a Q scholar? What makes you so glib and dismissive of what other scholars have done on Q? How many papers on Q have you published? Where?
What is this you keep harping on and on about genetic dependence anyway?
The stratification is primarily based on the contents (comparison) - whether sapiental, apocalyptic and so on. Not on any basis of genesis. D goes beyond that and attempts to determine the ideological, theological and cultural nature of the sayings - whether cynic, Jewish and so on. Unless you can explain how these two (the stratification and the ideological and theological analysis of the contents) are mutually exclusive, the person who has misunderstood is you.
Or you have woefully misunderstood him.
This is a minor quibble. "Ethnic" covers theological and cultural - which is what D does in p.159 when he explains the theology of Epictetus and Dio of Prusa. D is contrasting Jewishness(religious) from Cynic(religious).
For the record, I don't agree with Turton regarding Q. But if you want the premises of the premises of the 2GH, why not check W.R. Farmer? Unless you can explain, I see no reason why we should expect T to explain what other scholars have already done elsewhere.
Just explain why you think he is wrong. We dont care about how many PhDs are on your side.
So your problem is his reason for citing the texts, not whether or not he is correct or wrong. I am sure that you know that appeal to motive is a fallacy.
I am sure it was. He explains and provides references from his sources. And he provides his reconstruction of who he believes Jesus was. The fact that he avoided being confrontational does not mean he was writing a popular book. To be clear, why do you think that Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) is a popular book?
What is he popularizing?