Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Vorkosigan, I don't know any methodology used by [Mythicists] that is either sound or unsound, except for the way of thinking that was proposed by Toto to be a sound "methodology"--skepticism. It is not a way of building beliefs, but of disbeliefs, and the practical limits to disbelief are arbitrary. If you actually have some other methodology, then I would love to learn of it. mountainman was telling me that he prefers Argument to the Best Explanation, but I am not so sure he was telling the truth.

AA, I'm afraid you are a hopelessly incompetent victim of your own ludicrous misinterpretations of what and how skeptics think. Until you stop whining and come up with something concrete, there's no point in me wasting my time with you. Good bye.

Cheers.

Doug Shaver · 06-21-2011, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dating the gospels to 70 CE does not provide any sort of positive support for historicism. One can accept the standard dating for the gospels and still see them as theological fiction, interpreting the LXX in an allegorical fashion with no historical personage at their core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It provides support for historicism the same as any other sort of proximate attestation

Prove it. Show how you infer "Jesus probably existed" from "The standard dating of the gospels is correct" without using any premises that assume historicity.

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

It provides support for historicism the same as any other sort of proximate attestation

Prove it. Show how you infer "Jesus probably existed" from "The standard dating of the gospels is correct" without using any premises that assume historicity.

The written gospels tell of a religious myth of the life and death of a human doomsday cult leader that lived about 40 years prior. This evidence is strongly expected from the explanation that there was a human figure that founded a cult 40 years prior, and the plausibility of this explanation is made strong in light of an analogous historical pattern of myths of cult leaders. Such proximity and specific detailed beliefs in a historical human (some beliefs that are expected of a historical cult leader but awkward for the cult) are not expected from any pattern of mere myth or fiction. Therefore, Jesus probably existed.

jgoodguy · 06-21-2011, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dating the gospels to 70 CE does not provide any sort of positive support for historicism. One can accept the standard dating for the gospels and still see them as theological fiction, interpreting the LXX in an allegorical fashion with no historical personage at their core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It provides support for historicism the same as any other sort of proximate attestation

Prove it. Show how you infer "Jesus probably existed" from "The standard dating of the gospels is correct" without using any premises that assume historicity.

The correct statement is, assuming a 70CE date for the Gospel of Mark and assuming the mythical redactors and interpolators did not modify it: "Within 4 decades years of his alleged death, a literary work mentioned a Jesus as a historical person".

I am unsure of the value of this evidence to either the HJers or the JMers.

Toto · 06-21-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Prove it. Show how you infer "Jesus probably existed" from "The standard dating of the gospels is correct" without using any premises that assume historicity.

The written gospels tell of a religious myth of the life and death of a human doomsday cult leader that lived about 40 years prior. This evidence is strongly expected from the explanation that there was a human figure that founded a cult 40 years prior,

The "explanation" that there was a historical founder of the cult would predict an earlier mention of this leader. There is nothing in this explanation that would predict that the existence of the leader would be hidden for 40 years, then surface in a theological document.

Quote:

and the plausibility of this explanation is made strong in light of an analogous historical pattern of myths of cult leaders.

You have yet to establish this pattern.

Quote:

Such proximity and specific detailed beliefs in a historical human (some beliefs that are expected of a historical cult leader but awkward for the cult) are not expected from any pattern of mere myth or fiction. Therefore, Jesus probably existed.

Proximity is lacking. Nothing was apparently awkward or embarrassing for Mark.

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The written gospels tell of a religious myth of the life and death of a human doomsday cult leader that lived about 40 years prior. This evidence is strongly expected from the explanation that there was a human figure that founded a cult 40 years prior,

The "explanation" that there was a historical founder of the cult would predict an earlier mention of this leader. There is nothing in this explanation that would predict that the existence of the leader would be hidden for 40 years, then surface in a theological document.

"...earlier mention of this leader" ...by who, exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You have yet to establish this pattern.

Chapter 1 of Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium (or via: amazon.co.uk), lists a lineage of Christian apocalyptic prophets (including cult leaders). There are other compilations of cult leaders, and they are very predominantly actual human beings, not mere myths. Do you doubt the pattern? If so, then tell me exactly what you would like me to do to establish the pattern. I take the pattern as sort of an obvious fact, but I am happy to go through the trouble to prove it if anyone doubts it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Such proximity and specific detailed beliefs in a historical human (some beliefs that are expected of a historical cult leader but awkward for the cult) are not expected from any pattern of mere myth or fiction. Therefore, Jesus probably existed.

Proximity is lacking. Nothing was apparently awkward or embarrassing for Mark.

I mean "proximity" between the gospels and the reputed events--40-50 years for Mark, less than 40 years for Q, 50-60 years for Matthew and Luke, and 60-80 years for John. Especially relative to many other ancient attestations, this proximity is exceptionally good. Compare it to the proximity of the detailed extant attestations of Alexander the Great. What was it--300 years?

There is evidence that indicates most certain awkwardness for Matthew, Luke and John, and there is also evidence that can be very plausibly interpreted as awkwardness in Mark. Most importantly, they are the sort of claims that we would very plausibly expect to be embarrassing for the Christian cult, and such claims would be plausibly expected of Jesus as the historical human cult founder.

PhilosopherJay · 06-21-2011, 09:52 AM

Hi ApostateAbe,

Case actually gives the correct answer, but has not read the text carefully enough to realize it. She writes

Quote:

A later editor or transcriber might preserve such a tradition, either unconscious of its incongruity, or because he felt it could be explained by some device of interpretation,

It is clear that this is what happened when we divide the prediction into its terrestrial and celestial components.

Quote:

13.1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 13.2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." 13.3And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 13.4 "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"

Quote:

13.30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The basic prediction was the destruction of the buildings on the Temple Mount. This prediction was fulfilled either in 70 or 135. So it is not an untrue prediction, but a fulfilled prediction. All of the terrestrial things that Jesus predicts does come true.

However, there is also unfulfilled celestial material in the prediction:

Quote:

13.24. "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 13.25and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 13.26And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 13.27And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The statement 13.32 originally followed the statement at 13.27. We can see how naturally and logically it follows when we place it there:

Quote:

13.24. "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 13.25and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 13.26And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 13.27And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. 13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Likewise, it makes perfect sense to put the terrestrial material together:
The ending of the terrestrial material is this:

Quote:

13.14. "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 13.15let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; 13.16and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 13.17And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 13.18Pray that it may not happen in winter. 13.19For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. 13.20And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 13.21And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 13.22False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 13.23But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand. 13.30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Mark is describing what happened a few years before in the Bar Kokhba War (Second Jewish-Roman War) 132-135.

The real question is 'Why do we have two predictions a terrestrial-fulfilled one and a celestial-unfulfilled one mixed together?'

Our best clue is that we find the exact same wording in all three gospels (Lk. 21.32, Mt. 24.34, Mk. 30.30)

My solution is that Luke found the terrestrial-fulfilled prediction in Mark's gospel and the celestrial-unfulfilled prediction in Matthew. Matthew uses a lot of material from John-the-baptist sources to fill in his gospel. His material is from John the baptist and represents an earlier source. The writer of Luke decides to just combine the two and put them in each gospel of Mark and Luke. He also puts it in his own gospel.

Thus, Mark wasn't bothered by the unfulfilled prediction because he did not write about any unfulfilled prediction. He had Jesus predicting only things that actually happened to the generation that he spoke to. A generation probably meant 120 years for him. If Jesus was speaking circa 35 CE, then the fulfillment of his words came in 132-135 CE, when the generation that had heard Jesus was still alive.

Matthew wasn't bothered because he was writing about a prediction in the distant future and never had Jesus saying it would come about in this generation.

Luke wasn't bothered because he was interested in resolving the obvious contradiction in the material between Mark and Matthew and liked his clever solution of combining them. He wasn't cheating or favoring one or the other, but reporting both writings fairly by combining them. He apparently didn't realize by combining them he created a contradiction that was not there when the two predictions were read separately.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

This is about Earl Doherty’s rebuttal to [URL=http://christianorigins.com/case/ch7.html]Shirley Jackson Case: The {snip}
This explanation may be little more than speculation on the part of Case, but it is not especially unlikely--we very much expect that any writing by an anonymous author that claims only to have received its knowledge from previous sources at most (Luke 1:1-4) would require the legitimizing effect of time and tradition before becoming scriptural authority effectively used in an ancient theological debate. The hyper-skeptical promoters of the argument from silence need to make a case for why the silence is best explained with the written gospels simply not existing.

Unfortunately, Doherty ignores Case’s most relevant argument for the strength of the gospel evidence--the dating of the gospel of Mark and its proximity to the alleged time of Jesus and his disciples. Case argues on pages 216-218:

While there are still differences of opinion about the exact dates of the several gospels, critical scholarship of today agrees on placing them within fairly well-defined limits. The last thirty-five years of the first century is the general period in which the composition of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts is commonly placed. Our immediate concern is with Mark. Irenaeus says this gospel was written in Rome after the death of Peter and Paul, but whether this statement rests upon a reliable tradition, or is merely Irenaeus' interpretation of the vaguer testimony of Papias, is uncertain. Similar uncertainty attaches to the tradition that Rome was the place of composition. More specific evidence for the dating must be sought in the gospel itself, and this is found in chap. 13. Here Jesus is credited by the author (or by his source) with predicting in emphatic terms the end of the world in Jesus' own generation (13:30 f.; cf. 9:1). Would a tradition of this sort be put into circulation for the first time after everybody who had been of Jesus' own generation was dead? A writer would not be likely to invent for Jesus a saying which history in the writer's own day had shown to be false. A later editor or transcriber might preserve such a tradition, either unconscious of its incongruity, or because he felt it could be explained by some device of interpretation, but he would not create it de novo unless he wished to disparage the individual of whom he was writing—an inconceivable thing for a Christian biographer of Jesus to do. This prophecy about the end must, therefore, represent either an original saying of Jesus, or a saying first ascribed to him while certain of his own associates were still alive. In either case it presupposes a close connection chronologically between Jesus and the framers of the tradition. Another noticeable feature of this thirteenth chapter of Mark is a cautioning against mistaking certain tragic happenings for the actual approach of the ultimate catastrophe, which would bring the present world-order to a close. Preliminary to the final disaster there was to be a season of great tribulation, the like of which the world had never seen before. What historic occasion corresponds to these dire events, when the people of Judea will need to flee to the mountains and when messianic pretenders will endeavor to obtain a following among Christians? Evidently the siege and fall of Jerusalem (66-70 A.D.), described while the fall is yet imminent, or soon after the event. And how closely does the end of all things follow upon these preliminary happenings? The end seemingly is not far off. The gospel is first to be preached to all the nations, yet the end is coming "in those days, after that tribulation," and "this generation shall not pass away until all these things be accomplished." Thus the composition of Mark must fall near the year 70 A.D. Whether the destruction of Jerusalem is a matter of the near future or of the immediate past may be thought questionable, but in either case the Markan tradition comes from an age when some personal followers of Jesus were still alive. And if this is true for Mark, it will be granted without question for the primitive non-Markan source-material incorporated in Matthew and Luke.

This argument is the same argument used by historians today, and the strength of it has not changed. The obvious upper limit of the time of the composition of the synoptic gospels is the earliest time of the certain deaths of all of the disciples of Jesus. If Doherty or anyone else wants to push the compositions into the second century (or well after the time of the earliest certain deaths of the disciples), then a comparably good argument must be provided, not mere ad hoc speculations and not wishful thinking.

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 10:04 AM

Philosopher Jay, your model is both exceptionally complex and bizarre, even with respect to what other members accept, which, though honest and thoughtful, is much more than I would like to deal with. For example, the monologue in Mark 13 is introduced with the "prophecy" of the destruction of the temple, an historical event that most certainly corresponds to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE, not the Bar-Kochba Revolt of 135 CE, and I don't think anyone else would be willing to claim that Mark 13 is all about the Bar-Kochba Revolt. There are a lot of fundamental issues that belie your assertions, and we need to take care of those issues before we have any common ground upon which to debate. I am not even sure that I would be willing to debate that fundamental stuff.

So, maybe just a very minor point: Shirley Jackson Case was a "he," not a "she." He of course was named well before the time when Leslie Nielsen first quipped, "...and don't call me Shirley!"

bacht · 06-21-2011, 10:13 AM

I dunno, the Little Apocalypse doesn't seem very original to me. The celestial phenomena go back to post-exilic prophets like Joel. The Son of Man could have been Mark's nod to Daniel. The "abomination of desolation" clearly references the temple and the earlier Maccabean revolt (We assume that Jesus and his group supported the temple, but fringe groups like Qumran considered it illegitimate)

These sorts of predictions are notoriously difficult to date (Revelation is regularly cited for the end of the world, pick a year you like and you can make the numbers work somehow)

Toto · 06-21-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The "explanation" that there was a historical founder of the cult would predict an earlier mention of this leader. There is nothing in this explanation that would predict that the existence of the leader would be hidden for 40 years, then surface in a theological document.

"...earlier mention of this leader" ...by who, exactly?

By someone who knew Jesus.

Are you seriously claiming that you would predict that a historical figure would disappear from history and be mentioned only several generations later?

Quote:

Chapter 1 of Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium (or via: amazon.co.uk), lists a lineage of Christian apocalyptic prophets (including cult leaders). There are other compilations of cult leaders, and they are very predominantly actual human beings, not mere myths. Do you doubt the pattern? If so, then tell me exactly what you would like me to do to establish the pattern. I take the pattern as sort of an obvious fact, but I am happy to go through the trouble to prove it if anyone doubts it.

Yes - these are post-Jesus Christ apocalyptic preachers, actual men and women who modeled themselves on the Jesus Christ of the gospels. This does not prove that their model had to have been a historical person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Proximity is lacking. Nothing was apparently awkward or embarrassing for Mark.

I mean "proximity" between the gospels and the reputed events--40-50 years for Mark, less than 40 years for Q, 50-60 years for Matthew and Luke, and 60-80 years for John. Especially relative to many other ancient attestations, this proximity is exceptionally good. Compare it to the proximity of the detailed extant attestations of Alexander the Great. What was it--300 years?

Alexander was written about by his contemporaries, men who fought with him (or against him.) These sources have been lost, but we know they exist because they were used as sources by later writers.

There is no indication that Mark had an earlier detailed written source from someone who knew Jesus.

Quote:

There is evidence that indicates most certain awkwardness for Matthew, Luke and John, and there is also evidence that can be very plausibly interpreted as awkwardness in Mark.

There is nothing in Mark that can be called "awkwardness." Matthew, Luke, and John are rewriting Mark and can sound awkward.

Quote:

Most importantly, they are the sort of claims that we would very plausibly expect to be embarrassing for the Christian cult, and such claims would be plausibly expected of Jesus as the historical human cult founder.

If they were truly embarrassing, they would have been dropped at some point in early Christian history.

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

06-21-2011, 10:04 AM	#38
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Philosopher Jay, your model is both exceptionally complex and bizarre, even with respect to what other members accept, which, though honest and thoughtful, is much more than I would like to deal with. For example, the monologue in Mark 13 is introduced with the "prophecy" of the destruction of the temple, an historical event that most certainly corresponds to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE, not the Bar-Kochba Revolt of 135 CE, and I don't think anyone else would be willing to claim that Mark 13 is all about the Bar-Kochba Revolt. There are a lot of fundamental issues that belie your assertions, and we need to take care of those issues before we have any common ground upon which to debate. I am not even sure that I would be willing to debate that fundamental stuff. So, maybe just a very minor point: Shirley Jackson Case was a "he," not a "she." He of course was named well before the time when Leslie Nielsen first quipped, "...and don't call me Shirley!"

06-21-2011, 10:13 AM	#39
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	I dunno, the Little Apocalypse doesn't seem very original to me. The celestial phenomena go back to post-exilic prophets like Joel. The Son of Man could have been Mark's nod to Daniel. The "abomination of desolation" clearly references the temple and the earlier Maccabean revolt (We assume that Jesus and his group supported the temple, but fringe groups like Qumran considered it illegitimate) These sorts of predictions are notoriously difficult to date (Revelation is regularly cited for the end of the world, pick a year you like and you can make the numbers work somehow)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.