EarlDoherty

And what do you think half of the text of both my books (The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man) spend their time doing? Not only are you once again having recourse to the “appeal to authority” (can’t you get it through your head that this is simply not acceptable here?), you are showing once again very clearly that you have not read any of my books, yet you sound off against them as though you’ve dissected and discredited them, something which neither you nor too many others on this board show any sign of having done.

And just where have you “read of [my] treatment of Ignatius”? What you say here is so garbled it cannot be derived from any reading of my material. In The Jesus Puzzle I more or less accepted the Shorter Recensions as authentic, although I have in my new book leaned toward the probability that they are forgeries written not too long after his death. Once again, you make statements about me that show an abysmal understanding of my work and the mythicist case in general. When are you going to start to correct that, seeing that you have little hesitation in coming here and pontificating on things you know virtually nothing about?

As for that wretched (and unfairly biased) remark by R. J. Hoffmann so gleefully posted on Wikipedia, I suggest you read my comments on that as found toward the end of my website article: Some Thoughts on the Demise of The Jesus Project. Of course, you will believe what you want to believe.

Do you have anything better than to turn everything into an argument from silence so that you think you can dismiss it? You have ignored the whole point of my remarks about Papias, namely the common sense reasoning that is so abysmally missing from much of New Testament study when they force texts to be saying what they want them to be saying.

Sorry, but this argument doesn’t work. How much closer can you get to Jesus than the companion of Peter who was his chief disciple? The very fact that the tradition (first expressed in Papias) that this Mark recorded as faithfully as possible all the words of Jesus that Peter was witness to suggests that this was the very reason why that originally anonymous Gospel was given to such a Mark. It’s like forging Acts, making up a largely fictitious ‘biography’ of Paul, and attributing it to the companion of Paul.

And you haven’t explained to us how Papias could have belonged to a community that used the Gospel of John yet didn’t make any mention of it, let alone quote from it, in his work. It seems you have your own “argument from silence,” namely that you remain silent on challenges to the problematic statements you make. Why not try to apply the ‘common sense’ methodology yourself?

By now, you should know as well as I do that placing Mark right at 70 is unsustainable, since there is no specific support, internal or external, for that early a date. In fact, if you read my material, you would know that there is very good support/argument for placing it around 90.

P.S. And my thanks to Art for referring to Carrier and Price (and himself) and putting the lie to what were prejudiced, even malicious, comments by Hoffmann.

Earl Doherty

spin

Ie you have nothing coherent. Arbitrary is the rule.

You already have assumptions which corrupt your analysis. You assume, while you can distinguish just one example of authorial intervention that stands out like a sore thumb -- "breaking the fourth wall" --, that you can happily go on with business as usual. You figure because you can see only one case of authorial intervention there is only one. Sounds like the good ship Titanic at work: what you can't see can't hurt you.


spin

judge

Ok

Can you explain how you know there is "absolutely no doubt"?

Isn't this what religious nuts have been telling us for years? There is no doubt about this, no doubt about that..blah blah blah...
Aren't you putting yourself in the same bag?

EarlDoherty

You know there is no doubt by subjecting it to the logical analysis which I have laid out. If you don't agree with that analysis, you demonstrate where the logic breaks down or is unreliable. Apparently you have done neither, and simply have recourse to attacking me personally.

Failing that, you should explain how you think it is a sensible conclusion that Papias could have quoted from his "Mark" and "Matthew" and yet no one gives the slightest hint that he had done so. In other words, contribute something substantive to the discussion which would show that you know and understand what it is that is being discussed.

Earl Doherty

rob117

This sounds an awful lot like epistemological nihilism. There is a certain level at which repeatedly asking, "but how do you know this? OK, but how do you know this? Alright, but just how do you know this?" becomes absolutely ludicrous, as though you expect us to reduce a complex historical argument based on multiple conflicting sources to the level of pure Aristotelian logic. Hate to break it to you, but the real world don't work like that and it ain't gonna happen.

There are a certain number of assumptions which every person makes when dealing with a text. One of said assumptions is that if a text is purporting to be a narrative is in fact a narrative, and that authorial interjections should only be presumed when their context is clear-- as in "let the reader understand."

Remember, the simplest explanation of all the evidence is usually the best one. "Hidden authorial interjections" that we can't detect introduce an unnecessary complication into the model.

The article on your blog/website that someone linked to earlier.

And you still have yet to adequately justify how it is "common sense" to assume that we should expect a play by play catalog of Papias' quotes on the gospels from the church fathers, nor why we should expect that Justin Martyr should name the gospel writers by name when he was referring to them collectively.

Why not attribute the gospel to Peter himself?

Remember that Papias' work is lost. You should make no claim to know what it contained.

The Epistles of John are connected in literary style and theology with the Gospel of John, and are generally believed to come from the same community-- in Asia Minor, the same area as Papias. Papias knew the First Epistle of John according to Eusebius, and if he knew the First Epistle he likely knew the Gospel as well, even if he did not quote it.

See here.

Whether or not Papias knew gJohn, he still had other accounts against which to defend Mark, including his "Matthew" (not our Matthew).

spin

I bet you get a great view through all that sand on your head.

Zoom... straight over your head. You're still fiddling about with authorial interjections. You've individuated one sure fire example of words put into Jesus' mouth. You know nothing about these texts, when they were written, who wrote them, where they were written and you even have evidence of words being put into Jesus' mouth and you are going to pretend that this must be a lone occurrence.

You can even say: "The gospel writers interject their own voices into the narrative at times", so you are aware that this isn't a lone occurrence, though you act like it is. You have a prima facie case of authorial involvement in the content and you are deflecting with "epistemological nihilism". Face it: you are vaguely aware of your epistemological problem. Any time you use a statement from a gospel, you basically don't know whether it is from the author or from a source.

In Mk 7:11 we read in the lips of Jesus, "Corban, that is to say, given". Do you think Jesus supplied the translation to his Judean audience? I should hope not. It should be another authorial intervention into the words of Jesus.

When Luke specifies that the unnamed hometown of Jesus is Nazara and relocates it out of Marcan order (which in Luke should be immediately before ch 9) to ch 3, is this not another authorial intervention to change the history of Jesus?

You should forget about facile charges like "epistemological nihilism" and deal with your own epistemological issues. You should be cautioned against taking anything at face value. You can find many examples of authorial intervention. Is the sermon on the plain such an intervention or is the sermon on the mount? or both? Is the double sequence regarding the crowd feedings, discussions with the Pharisees and healing of a blind and a deaf man in Mk 7 & 8 further authorial intervention? (And aren't those two feedings not variations on the same story?)

You can see how much extra information the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain over Mark: two enormous examples of authorial intervention.

Is the scene in the garden of Gethsemane with the three disciples sleeping while we get Jesus' prayer veracious or does it contain authorial intervention?

Who was there to record the discussion between the devil and Jesus? The author?

Are you prepared to consider your epistemological problem yet? How do you know at any time you cite something from the gospels that it is not authorially produced rather than from real conversations and events?


spin

aa5874

So, a simple explanation could be dead wrong.

But, how could Papias know about gMark before it was written?

Based on the Church writers who made reference to Papias writings gMark was written at least about 20 years before 70 CE.

Your claim that the external evidence places gMark and gMatthew after or between 70-100 CE is just not true.

See here.

Now, did you not just say Papias' work is lost and people should not make claims about what it contained?

You really don't know what Papias' Matthew contained and so cannot tell if "your" Matthew is not Papias' Matthew. You are just guessing or making stuff up.

According to Church writers, there is no doubt that gMatthew was writen by a disciple called Matthew and that gMark was written by a follower of Peter called Mark.

This information appear to be bogus even though the Church writers made reference to Papias. A simple explanation is that Papias and/or Eusebius were bogus sources.

You really don't know the veracity of Eusebius or Papias.

You must admit that the dating of gMark and gMatthew is based on sources that have been found to have very little credibility.

judge

Hmm , Actually I dont know there is "no doubt" as you put it. There is always some doubt (sometimes a large ammount) when we speculate about things written down thousands of years ago by those we know very little about.



Earl you logic breaks down because you insist there is "no doubt" . Of course there is some doubt. You are preteding you can read Eusebius's mind, which you cant.
Maybe he just didnt comment on it. that is all that needs to be said.
The problem for you is that once you admit there is doubt your theory becomes so wishy washy as to be not much good. And so, you just keep repeating there is "no doubt", there is "no doubt".



...boo hoo.
For dogs sake , if you dont like skepticism find another forum. If you dont like people poking and prodding your pet theory go some place else.

As I said Earl, when you start blathering on about there being "no doubt" you are no different to a religious fundamentalist. If the shoe fits wear it!

EarlDoherty

And your own 'blathering' is simply a way of avoiding engaging with my arguments. I supplied justification for concluding that there is "no doubt" that Papias did not quote from his Mark or Matthew, or any other Gospel, and you refuse to address it, indicating that you do not in fact know or understand what is being discussed and have no substantive way of defending your position or discrediting mine.

What I don't like is people who refuse to address arguments, and think that they are still saying something. When you express skepticism and are challenged to justify that skepticism, refusal to do so exposes you for what you are. Poke and prod all you like, as long as you back it up with meaningful counter argument. I'm afraid "boo hoo" doesn't cut it as an enlightening response.

I don't need to go somewhere else (although I would, if the level of maturity and discourse here was never any higher than yours). I will simply ignore you in future.

Earl Doherty

judge

Here is what you said WRT Eusebius.

Sorry Earl, this is not an argument.

Then you go on to ...asking whether itis likely that (in your words) papias wouldn't disparrage written documents etc etc

You may not realise this but askking the question of whether this is likely is not an argument that there is "absolutly no doubt".

Do you see you havent made an argument in favour of there being "absolutely no doubt" about anything. All you did was pose a question about whether one thing was like and thgen jumped to the conclusion that there was "absolutely no doubt" about somethign else.
please try and do better.



Rather than ignore me, why not come up with an actual argument of favour of what you claimed being subject to "absoloutely no doubt".

All you have done is

1. Made a claim.
2. Made no argumewnt with respect that specific claim
3. Got upset when called on it/.

Is it too much to ask that you make an argument WRT the specific claim I called you on?