Vinnie

But here is the problem, you are critiquing apologetics regarding Jesus, I am doing my best to do history. Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, that later Christians think Jesus was born on Dec 25th, that there are errors in the Bible and so on have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

You are approaching the issue from a "canonical dimension". I am treating all (not just the Biblical ones) early Christian writings as historical documents which they are and evaluating them. I do not harmonoze and I do not approach the issue from a canonical dimesnion.

You appear to be stuck in the field of apologetics. Your standard was probably high :---> there are no errors in the Bible and now that you know a "bunch of errors" you are viewing it all with more skepticism than is justified. But remember, an error in the creation account is not an error in Mark.

I use the same logic when debating inerrancy advocates. They like to appeal to prophecy but my question is, how does an accurate prophecy in Is. establish the overall accuracy of the Gospel of Mark in any way? These are two separate beasts. The discussion never usually goes further to this on whether or not there was an accurate prophecy (which should not be defined as predictions anyways!).

Leave the apologetics bunker and come join us in the land of history

Vinnie

Toto

<mod had on>

Please lower the emotional level a bit. I do not think that a charge of lying over a specific issue is an "ad hom", but even if it could be defended, it rarely helps maintain a civilized level of discourse.

Thank you.

Vinnie

For those who already read it, I added a section 15 (this is an ongoing work):

For this I modified something I already had up on my old site and made more explicit an argument from Jesus followers:

[15] Argument: There is no Way to Find a Ground Zero without Begging the Question

Rebuttal: Some Jesus-skeptics have argued that the whole process of dating Jesus' life is circular. In order to find out when Jesus lived we must assume the Gospels are historically reliable and we end up begging the question. Is this true? Need we revert to a naïve brand of fundamentalism in order to establish a general timeframe for the life of Jesus of Nazareth?

We recommend Meier's discussion for an exact chronology of Jesus life: Marginal V1. PP 372-433. For now we note 20 Complexes which point to ground zero in the Christian corpus of the first century:

1. Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate whose office can be dated from 26-36 A.D. Both Josephus and Tacitus (2d century) mention this. Both references are disputed, but for those who accept the authenticity of one or both of these outside vectors, we need go no further. We also have Mark (and Mt and Lk from him) and possibly independently, John. We also have 1 Timothy which may date just before the turn of the first century. It is well established that Jesus was crucified as well (first stratum and embarrassment).

2. We have contemporary primary source datum that Jesus had a brother named James alive alive in the 50's via the Pauline corpus, GMark, Josephus, possible Jude, GThomas and GJohn at least confirms the notion that Jesus had brothers. At the least very secure threefold independent attestation!

3. Jesus is said to have been baptized by John the Baptist whose historicity is secured by Josephus and Mark, and Q. John's ministry can be dated.

4. John the Baptist is said to have been killed by Herod and the Synoptics have Jesus/Herod related material as well. This provides grounds for dating.

5. Both Matthew and Luke independently say Jesus was born near the time of Herod the Great's death in their birth narratives (4 B.C.).

6. Paul became a follower after Jesus' death (establishes an upper limit on Jesus' life).

7. Peter's existence and Jesus' followers being alive and known by Paul in the 40s and 50s fit in well with and help establish a general timeframe.

8. To Peter we add Mary Magdalen (attested in Mark, John and Luke 8 which is independent of Mark's account and may be historically accurate al la the embarrassment criterion). We may also note that Mark mentions two Mary's and Paul also mentions a Mary along with the Gospel of Thomas. Exactly which Paul and Thomas refer to is not known but Thomas places her into the context of an historical Jesus and this increases the probability that Jesus had a follower(s) named Mary alive in the first century.

9. We may also note Salome who is mentioned by both Mark and the Gospel of Thomas. This is multiple independent attestation of sources and form (narrative vs sayings Gospel).

10. Thomas as a follower of Jesus. This is evidence by the Gospel of Thomas, the traditions on Thomas in the Gospel of John and two independent lists of the twelve found in Mark and Luke (see Meier's arguments in V.III of Marginal).

11. Judas as a follower of Jesus would requires fuller argumentation and a discussion of John in relation to the synoptics. But we have independent traditions of Judas death (Mt and Lk contradict one another), multiple attestation of Judas and embarrassment.

12. At this point we may simply note the full Twelve. For this we have two lists (Mk and Lk) and a Pauline reference to the Twelve. We also have pericopes regarding Judas and the Twelve which might have prove true given the embarrassment criterion..

13. When disputing with him, some contemporaries exclaimed "You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham!" (John 8:57) This reference to Jesus not yet being 50 years old is consistent with the overall time frame. For a discussion of it see Meier, ibid, PP 378-379)

14. John 2:20 supports the timeframe as well. "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" We can date, approximately this reference to the Temple rebuilding (probably Herod's 15th or 18th year). There are problems with using this reference in hopes of obtaining an exact chronology and John Meier offers good discussion of the issues (ibid., PP. 380-382) but for our purposes here it supports the general timeframe.

15. Jesus Short ministry (all four Gospels) is consistent with the general timeframe (7-6 B.C - 36 A.D.)

16. Luke says Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23) which is consistent with the timeframe.

17. The opening to Luke 3 is filled with names and historical references: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (v. 1-2) John the Baptist started preaching. As noted before, Pilate can be dated but most important reference here is " In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" which is very consistent with out timeframe. For a discussion of problems and questions with this passage see Meier, ibid, p. 383-386.

18. Some scholars think that statements in documents like Q seem to fit in well with the atmosphere of the Palestinian 20s.

19. The existence of sources about Jesus (e.g. Pauline corpus, other epistles, Mark, Q, L, M, Matthew, Luke, Acts, John, a Miracle list and the form of Mark's Gospel etc.) are consistent with this timeframe. Obviously Jesus must predate any sources which mention him in the past tense (e.g. knows of his crucifixion) but on the flip side it might be difficult to maintain a literary silence concerning a person such as Jesus who was born in 100 B.C. with any sort of widespread oral transmission that finally reached the literary limelight almost a century and a half later. The existence of such sources logically establish an upper limit and at the same time they probably should caution us from bumping Jesus too far back in space-time.

20. The expectation of an imminent return of the Lord. By 50 A.D. The Thessalonians were already concerned about the return of the Lord. (1 Thess 4:15-17). As E.P. Sanders (HFJ p.179) notes, "Paul's concerts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were all still alive." E.P. Sanders also goes on to argue that there appears to be a saying behind this belief and reconstructs it from the independent usage by Matthew and Paul.


It is not my argument that every one of these goes back to the historical Jesus. Most of them do in fact but that is for another day. For now it is my argument that collectively all the overlapping traditions very clearly points to a ground zero without begging the question.

Vinnie

Llyricist

Vinnie,
There is too much circularity and inconsistency in your arguments to list, but to name a couple;

First you say that the embarrassment criterea actually goes back to Paul, if so, how can you turn around and apply it to Mark? It don't work, It was Paul that created the historical "fact" that Mark had to deal with. i.e. the fact that Paul (may have) made up the whole crucifixion was the historical fact that Mark had to deal with. In any case you cannot apply that embarrassment criterea to Mark as you did in your last argument after attributing any embarrassment back to Paul.

Also first you say that Josephus doesn't matter (whether or not the reference was interpolated), then you go right ahead and use it in several other arguments.

These types of things run rampant throughout your treatise, it is difficult for me to take it seriously.

gregor

Nomad

I am interested in your statement (and probable misplaced modifier):

"I continue to believe that his Gospel represents an independent set of sources, just as does Paul."

I assume you are saying that Paul had independent sources, too. I trust you are not saying that Paul shares your belief that the author of John had independent sources.

Vinnie

In other words, suspiciously, "I don't believe you because there are so many errors in your work yet I'm not going to name them."

But let's look at the ones you did raise:

I do not remember saying the crucifixion was embarrassing to the author of Mark. Maybe I said that in the past here somewheres. I don't know. If I did I was wrong. I will say that it "may" have been slightkly embarrassing to Mark but there is no way to tell. I stated it would have been an embarrassment to early Christians and documented this with two very forceful arguments which you very conveniently, have failed to address and instead opted for this superficial and contrived argument against my thesis.

Is your argument that Paul created the crucifixion and Mark had to deal with it? Well I won't address that at the moment but I will say that we just found Argument Number 16 and it will be added to the paper soon if this is in fact your argument (which must be based on several commonly not accepted interpolations).

My point was that if Josephus did not mention Jesus it is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus for the reasons I cited. I did not say it does not have an impact on the historicity of any Jesus material. But if it does I will say now that it is very minimal.

I mentioned Josephus later in section five. Is that your problem? Also in point 13 I stated: "We have what the skeptics want [reference from Josephus] but its simply not necessary."

Where was I inconsistent? And even if I was on this point how does this non-sequitur discredit all my other points?

I you fail to list them I simply cannot comment on or refute invisible arguments. How and why should I take them seriously? By all means, list them if you have the time

Vinnie

Vinnie

Yeah, its pretty standard. Pauline corpus is independent of the canonical Gospels. This itself hurts argument 16 that I will address soon that Paul invented crucifixion of Jesus and Mark was dealing with it. Niot to mention Paul's statement that he was handing on tradition but we save that passage which many of you will jump on Price's bandwagon and call an interpolation for another time.

Also not to mention that Christianity predates Paul and that there are clear limits on creation of Jesus material in Paul. Jesus mythicist who promote silence silence silence should know this betetr than anyone. Paul didn't even feel at liberty to put words into Jesus' mouth! A few other contradictory details will be forthcoming as well.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Also true.

That is not the title of the item in question. And you cannot prove that point by reference to Mark alone. That was the whole point of my post, which Sapone carefully refrained from linking to.

Either Sapone is unable to read or he lied. You choose. BTW, calling something an ad hom does not address the issue it raises. You, as always, are simply evading the issue.

Nor did I say it did. Nor did I imply that. Eve tackles the issue by noting, as I did, the problem of underlying metacriteria. That's what I was referencing.

I bow to my master in evasion.

The field is already leaving you behind.

It has already been established that the Synoptics are not independent of each other and the pendulum is swinging back on John and the Synoptics. To simply claim, without discussion or qualification, as Sapone did, is absurd. The field is ferment, there are many different opinions. Sapone nowhere indicates this on his site.

It is one thing to stake out extreme positions on a message board. That is expected and even desirable. It is quite another to build a FAQ, especially on an opponent's position, intended for an informational function for a wider audience and then fill it with shallow, mendacious, erroneous claims, and not clearly indicate where the concensus is, what one's personal opinion is, and how one knows things. Personal attacks in the form of deliberate misquotes, especially without links to the relevant discussions, are not only completely out of bounds, but show a lack of proper scholarly ethics. I have never attacked Sapone the way he attacked me, nor do I, when I build informational sites, put information in distorted form, or deliberately truncate quotes, cites, and ideas, to make some point of my own or to convince an unsuspecting and unsophisticated audience that I am right. Even on my letters page, where I included a couple of pieces of hatemail, I included the whole letter (and suppressed the names out of courtesy, even to those who hate me). The only ethical way to do deal with controversial information is to make it completely accessible. Anything else is unacceptable.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Instead of ranting, raving, whining, asserting and preaching at us, how about you address my actual arguments? Are you above them?

Lets look at your post:

""Also true."""

Concede that you engaged in ad hominem arguments.

""""That is not the title of the item in question. And you cannot prove that point by reference to Mark alone. That was the whole point of my post, which Sapone carefully refrained from linking to."""""

Claiming Sapone is careful not to link to counterarguments when in fact Sapone's entie paper is all about addressing arguments and Vork spews nothing but polemic rather than address the subjects at hand in his response.

"""Either Sapone is unable to read or he lied. """"

Accuss opponent of deliberately stating false information as true.

""""""Nor did I say it did. Nor did I imply that. Eve tackles the issue by noting, as I did, the problem of underlying metacriteria. That's what I was referencing. """"""'

Mr. There is no Jesus methodology starts to backpeddle.

"""I bow to my master in evasion."""""

Engage in childish theatrics.

"""""The field is already leaving you behind."""""

Dismiss Mark without Q proponents like Goodcare, E.P. Sanders, et al, with assertions like this. That is your problem Vork. You are incapable of making your own arguments and you have to appeal to consensus after consensus on these issues but you just dismiss them when they say something you "want" to disagree with.

""""""It has already been established that the Synoptics are not independent of each other and the pendulum is swinging back on John and the Synoptics. To simply claim, without discussion or qualification, as Sapone did, is absurd. The field is ferment, there are many different opinions. Sapone nowhere indicates this on his site."""""""

What did I claim about the synoptics or canonicals that was absurd? No one said the synoptics were not dependent upon each other.

Finally, it is my understanding that more recent commentators have viewed John as independent but this is irrelevant. Like I said above, where are your arguments for Johannine dependence? I am aware of a few. I am also aware of a few against it. Go to X-Talk and present some.

Why do you offer an entire post with nothing of substance?

Vinnie

rlogan

I would have to politely agree that the list of points has some caricatures of Vork's positions. If it were possible to edit them in a spirit of accurate debate, that would be good.

I must disagree with your extreme characterization Consequent Atheist. I would have said "therefore, everyone and everything mentioned in the Bible should be presumed myth or malevolent lie" if that is what I meant. I think there was indeed a Herod. A Pontious Pilate. But I am skeptical of relying on the Bible alone to tell me about them.

Biased and superficial generalizations? You are entilted to your opinion. I would reserve that description for the Fundie position.

Presuppostions?! Ha!! What a joke. I'm a former fundy that once had biased pre-suppositions that were shattered by a more serious inquiry into the subject.

Yes, Vinnie - it is precisely relevant. My preacher. My father's preacher. The preachers all the way back to the Church fathers. The authors of the pentateuch. The other "historical" books. The synoptics. Same problem from the first day of Church history to the present . Lots of B.S. deception, etc.

I readily concede you are not doing "canon" apologetics Vinnie. But it's thin on non-canon in what I read from you. That is a wide area, and we know we don't have them all. Regardless, some of the same problems arise in all of the other Christian source material. There's no halo over the stuff you study.

How we sort out the "truth" from this is a vexing question. To not even mention this as a concern is odd to me. In my field, we would drop any author with just a fraction of the misdeeds we see in this material.

Now, I also concede that to the extent this is true in non-Christian sources, we must do the same. Lincoln has better attestation than Paul Bunyan.

In Christian spirit, Rlogan.