Steven Carr

I was inspired by
http://www.geocities.com/christianca...rmonizing.html

This warns sceptics that what sometimes appears to be the same story (eg the Sermon on the Mount/Plain) is actually two different events.

Similarly, it warns sceptics that what appears to be two different events (the demonstration in the Temple) actually only happened once.

So I wondered how Christians managed to know what was or what was not 2 different events? What was the Christian methodology which sceptics had not yet been clever enough to work out?

Roland

To me, the Gospel of John is patently a work of fiction.

Notice that not a single quote attributed to Jesus in this book can be found in the Synoptics. What is the likelihood of Matthew, Mark and Luke all missing these great quotes - and there are some great ones - if Jesus had actually said them?

rlogan

I'm rolling them all into one for you Toto. (I realize it is a rhetorical question)

It's all in the Hebrew Bible. In this case, Jeremiah 7:11 :

"Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD."

and Malachi 3:1-3 :

"Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness."


Jesus is just a bunch of cobbled-together HB Prophesy. A one-trick pony.

Brought to you by the gospel perp prophesy sluts.

GakuseiDon

Ah. It isn't Wright or Holding this time, but Price. I see.

Why do you do this, Steve? You can argue well when you want to. Why not post the link in the OP and start with that? I've already posted two warnings about how you use this "argument by proxy", but don't plan on posting another. I'm just curious why you do it this way.

"What was the Christian methodology which sceptics had not yet been clever enough to work out?" Yes, that's another one of your little specialities.
Price's article isn't about "Christian methodology vs skeptics methodology". He doesn't even mention "skeptics" at all, much less "Christian methodology". Why try to make it sound like he does? You do this kind of misrepresentation too often. Why take the trouble to do it this way?

I sometimes get a slightly icky feeling with some of your posts, Steve, like I need a shower or something. Please stop doing this. Historical methodology is an interesting topic in itself. What Price says is more reasonable than you are implying:

It should be clearly understood that a serious attempt to harmonize what purport to be historical accounts of the same event is not simply a perverse concern of Christian apologists. Any student of history, especially ancient history, is familiar with the problem, and any responsible historian confronted by apparently discrepant accounts in his sources will look first for a reasonable, realistic way of harmonizing them.

R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, page 112.

Just be above board in your OP. It helps to ground any debate that follows.

So, does ANYONE here have a problem with Price's article?

Steven Carr

Here is where the article is
http://www.geocities.com/christiancadre/Answers.htm

There is a big heading saying 'ANSWERING THE SKEPTICS'.

Still, I imagine Gakuseidon has his reasons for saying the article is not directed at skeptics.

So what IS this methodology? This reasonable, realistic way of harmonising them?

How does Price decide that the Sermon on the Mount/Plain is two different events, while the cleansing of the Temple is one event?

Despite my request for a description of this methodology, Gakuseidon simply says it is very interesting.

But how do I learn what this interesting methodology is, when nobody will tell me what it is?

I keep seeing this methodology being praised for being 'interesting', 'reasonable', and 'realistic', but I never see the methodology itself.

Vorkosigan

Like, for example, proposing that Judas first hanged himself, then the rope broke and his bowels burst out upon the ground...

Anyway, I don't think France is right at all. When real historians confront a discrepancy in the accounts, they attempt to find out how to resolve the discrepancy, not how to harmonize the stories. The two are very different. The first seeks to establish which, if any, story is correct. The second attempts to preserve the truth of both accounts by removing a conflict which has a priori been judged apparent.

For example, various sources give the date of the Spitfire's initial flight testing as sometime in the first week of March, 1935, but give differing days. Now imagine if I harmonized those accounts. I might argue that the Spitfire had been tested for 72 continuous hours. Or that the historians were using differing calendrical systems. Or that Wednesday occurred twice in the first week of March of that year, or similar. No historian would do that; that's what apologists do. First she would try to find out why the date has been variously reported, and then she would probably try to determine which is the most likely. If that was not possible, she would report to the reader why the problem cannot be resolved. But there is no way she would attempt to "harmonize" the data to bring it into some a priori position like the Gospel harmonizers have (all writers are telling the truth). That would be insanity.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

I agree. Harmonising is not the first thing responsible historians do, and Christian articles saying that it is are not accurately reporting historical methodology.

GakuseiDon

Heh? "I imagine Gakuseidon has his reasons for saying the article is not directed at skeptics"? But... but that's a completely different article. I couldn't have said anything about it, much less say that it's not directed at skeptics.

Why bother misrepresenting my comment is such an obvious way? It seems to be an instinct. It's not a gross misrepresentation, just a little vagueness to twist things. I simply don't understand why you bother doing it. It's not the most annoying thing around, it's just weird seeing you do this, here and on other boards. Yet you can debate well when you want to. What do you gain from vague misrepresentations?

What about Vinnie's article "Historical Jesus Methodology" (see link in his earlier post)? He discusses Crossan's method and Meier's method. What are your thoughts on that? (Note: I'm not trying to be clever, I'm interested in what you think of Vinnie's article).

Vinnie

Even Meier says that several times throughout his book. He calls it something like "uncritical harmonization" rather than "history". He speaks of harmonization with disdain several times.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Actually we have a third account. Judas ran over by a wagon. See Papias of which this is one of the two forms preserved. What REAL historians will do in the case of Papias is say that ancient writers had a popular imagination for horrnendous ends to horrendous characters. They reasoned that such an evil person would have such an proportionately evil fate.

Also, one does not hang themelves and fall "headlong"...

I spent considerable time on this error in my farce of a formal debate with Robertlw here.

Rather than harmonize, historians might seek to find out what is common to both of them. What motivated this. Purpose of the writing, laurels of the author, sources the author could have had. Lines of transmission, etc etc.

Vinnie