Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-13-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Well, while Holding has written something worthwhile on Josephus (and Tacitus, Lucian and Pliny the Elder), I am the author of the chapter about Josephus in Shattering the Christ Myth. I have to admit that I overlooked Acharya's work in this field. I did, however, address arguments by Early Doherty, G.A. Wells, Peter Kirby, Steve Mason (though he accepts partial authenticity of the TF) and Ken Olson.

Early Doherty did not have much of importance to say on the subject, confining his scholarly work to an analysis of how much Janet and John used to run, and how much the cat liked to be in the hat.

Have you read much Later Doherty?

While I agree that Doherty did not have much important to say on the subject, what he said was more involved than you suggest. I was not aware that we were defining Doherty's work by epoch. I do not know what counts as "Doherty," "Later Doherty," and "Much Later Doherty."

Hi Layman

Steven was making a joke about the way you spelled Earl Doherty as Early Doherty

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 07-18-2008, 07:51 AM

JW:
Just received Shattering the Christ Myth. What caught my initial interest is Jake O'Connell's Chapter 4, Papias's Testimony to the Existence of Jesus.

In his introduction he writes:

Quote:

Papias, a Christian who flourished in the late first to early second centuries, composed a work about Jesus, the existence of which is not explicable unless Jesus actually existed.

This is typical of O (O'Connell) throughout his chapter, making conclusions that are not supported by his arguments. I'm going to try and avoid commenting on this problem of O's because it will distract from considering how he handles the evidence.

O concentrates on identifying the evidence from Papias but spends little effort critically evaluating the evidence to determine it's quality. The value of evidence is inversely proportional to it's age. O ignores this consideration which for evidence which is about 2,000 years old is probably a more important consideration than anything O does consider.

The key to evaluating the quality of evidence are Sources. What are the sources and what is the credibility of the sources? O identifies that we have nothing extant directly from Papias and regarding references to Papias writes:

Quote:

In order to determine what information Papias recorded we must assess the accuracy of those later writers who purport to be quoting from Papias. Eusebius's reputation for carefully citing his sources and Irenaeus's early date (c. 180) and geographical proximity to where Papias lived provide good grounds to believe that what these two writers attribute to Papias may be accepted as actually deriving from him.

Leaving aside for now the assertions above of Eusebius' credibility and Irenaeus's "early date" O proceeds as if the related references to Papias are for all practical purposes just as good as extant Papias. There must be some discount though as it is always possible and sometimes demonstrated that subsequent authors have not accurately reported, either intentionally or unintentionally.

O goes on to mention later Christian authors/writings such as Philip of Side, Muratorian Canon, and Andrew of Caesarea that provide contradictory evidence as to the dating of Papias. O writes:

Quote:

In attempting to recover traditions of Papias, it is thus best to confine ourselves to Eusebius and Irenaeus.

In evaluating evidence you do not throw out the weaker evidence. While Irenaeus and Eusebius should have more weight because they are earlier it's entirely possbile that all these authors had the same source, extant Papias. The dating of Papias is in dispute. More discount.

Regarding the credibility of Papias as a source:

Was Papias a Reliable Witness?

Paul Tobin gives reasons to doubt that Papias was a credible source (Neil Godfrey also has good articles on the subject).

We have the following reasons than to discount Papias's testimony as evidence for Jesus' existence at this point:

1) Papias's evidence is very old.

2) There is no extant Papias.

3) The dating of Papias is in doubt.

4) Papias's credibility is in question.

Yes, O is correct that Papias is evidence that Jesus existed. But what is the quality of the evidence?

Next up, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons"), the earliest extant reference to Papias. Remarkably though O does not provide any quote of Irenaeus regarding Papias's sources and does not mention Eusebius' related criticism of Irenaeus.

Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Zeichman · 07-20-2008, 10:33 AM

Once I get some more free time and finish up my MA thesis, I'd be willing to write a review of the book. It may be a few weeks or more before I get the chance.

Celine · 07-20-2008, 01:37 PM

Does Holding hold a Ph.D?

Toto · 07-20-2008, 02:27 PM

Holding has a Masters in Library Science.

Steven Carr · 07-21-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Holding has a Masters in Library Science.

And libraries have books on lots of different subjects, and so Holding is now an expert on assessing books on all kinds of subjects. That is what Library Science qualifies you for best.

He honed his ability to distinguish good books on Biblical criticism from bad books on Biblical criticism during his time that he worked in a prison library.

Apparently, there had to be a lock-down for 24 hours after a prisoner heard that Holding had chosen a book with views on Q that had been rebutted in a footnote to an article in 'The Journal of New Testament Criticism'.

So Holding had to learn his Library Science fast in the high-pressure atmosphere of a prison library.

Ted Hoffman · 07-21-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

And libraries have books on lots of different subjects, and so Holding is now an expert on assessing books on all kinds of subjects. That is what Library Science qualifies you for best.

Library science teaches one about how to index, classify, catalog, search, store, retrieve and manage a collection of information media which can be in print form, electronic form and so on.
Several books already have a Library of Congress classification so sometimes one does not need to classify the books. Needless to say, Library science is not what you describe as "assessing books" above.
I know Holding is a pain in the ass, but that is not because he did Library science. He doesn't do what he does because he did Lib Science. he would do it even if he did Medicene.

Roger Pearse · 07-21-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Steven was making a joke about the way you spelled Earl Doherty as Early Doherty

Reminds me of the one about the "Early Fathers"; so called because they are all dead, which would suggest that they should be called the "Late Fathers". Known as the Fathers because, being monks, none of them were.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

badger3k · 07-21-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Holding has a Masters in Library Science.

And libraries have books on lots of different subjects, and so Holding is now an expert on assessing books on all kinds of subjects. That is what Library Science qualifies you for best.

He honed his ability to distinguish good books on Biblical criticism from bad books on Biblical criticism during his time that he worked in a prison library.

Apparently, there had to be a lock-down for 24 hours after a prisoner heard that Holding had chosen a book with views on Q that had been rebutted in a footnote to an article in 'The Journal of New Testament Criticism'.

So Holding had to learn his Library Science fast in the high-pressure atmosphere of a prison library.

:notworthy:

If I recall, there was a lot of shankings in the yard over the Gnostic manuscripts as well, and the screws had to clamp down on a near-riot over the alma-bethulah (sp?) controversy. Very tough prison.

JoeWallack · 07-22-2008, 07:48 AM

JW:
Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons")

Once again we go back to this quote of O:

Quote:

In order to determine what information Papias recorded we must assess the accuracy of those later writers who purport to be quoting from Papias. Eusebius's reputation for carefully citing his sources and Irenaeus's early date (c. 180) and geographical proximity to where Papias lived provide good grounds to believe that what these two writers attribute to Papias may be accepted as actually deriving from him.

"Irenaeus's early date (c. 180) and geographical proximity to where Papias lived"? "geographical proximity"? Irenaeus was in Lyons (yes "Lyons") which is France and Papias was in Hierapolis which is in Turkey. Who was the Editor of this book?

O is putting a lot of weight on Irenaeus' supposed testimony but what exactly is Irenaeus' related testimony? Extant Irenaeus has one reference to Papias:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiv.html

Quote:

4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him.4745

O does not provide this quote. Irenaeus asserts that Papias was "the hearer of John". Irenaeus' previous reference to "John" was as the author of Revelations:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxvii.html

Quote:

1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned.

Irenaeus thought that the supposed disciple John was the author of Revelations so per Irenaeus Papias had a first hand source of John the disciple for information about the historical Jesus. Presumably the basis for this belief of Irenaeus that Papias was a hearer of John the disciple was Papias' Oracles of the Lord. Note that at this point though regarding Papias as part of an identified chain of witnesses to the historical Jesus:

1) We have nothing extant from Papias c. 110 CE.

2) We have nothing extant from Irenaeus c. 180 CE that directly quotes Papias on the subject.

3) It's not until Eusebius c. 320 CE that we have an explicit identification of Irenaeus' likely source and another quote not provided by O:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Quote:

Chapter 39. The Writings of Papias.

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him. These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw theRevelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received fromtradition.

JW:
And so Eusebius, based on extant Irenaeus' Against Heresies corrects Irenaeus' assertian that Papias was a hearer of John the disciple and says it is clear from what Papias wrote that Papias was not a hearer of John.

At this point than, up to Eusebius c. 320 CE, we have no credible extant claim of an identified chain of historical witness going from Papias back to Jesus.

Next up, Eusebius. Homework assignment:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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

07-20-2008, 10:33 AM	#83
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Once I get some more free time and finish up my MA thesis, I'd be willing to write a review of the book. It may be a few weeks or more before I get the chance.

07-20-2008, 01:37 PM	#84
Celine Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ames, IA Posts: 543	Does Holding hold a Ph.D?

07-20-2008, 02:27 PM	#85
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Holding has a Masters in Library Science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.