spin

If you are trying to do history, and that's what I thought "historical" in HJ indicates, then there are no near contemporary indications to lend support to datings of the texts. The rare earliest documents are from the second century -- and Schmidt dates P52 to late 2nd century --, so how can you get before that?

The best you can hope for with no outside pegs is a relative chronology. There is no assertion here.

You haven't shown the expertise to comment.


spin

Vinnie

History includes building off the work of other scholars. If you want to know why Galatians is a first-stratum Pailine text, pick up a book. Its not my job to teach such basics. Now if you want to know why GThomas is dated second stratum I would be more happy to answer you since this is actually a point of contention in scholarship today.

If you persist on accusing me of not doing history because I do not thoroughly address dead issues that "you" deem appropriate, I will not respond to you anymore. Unless your approach changes considerably I will not bother responding to you in here from this point on. If you do not get another response this is why.

Vinnie

Layman

If you want to get away from arguing the Jesus Myth I suspect you'll have to find another forum to frequent. Otherwise every thread will be drowned out by the Doherty Disciples.

rlogan

Thanks for responding Vinnie.

Crucifixion is shocking. Definately. It therefore makes all the better a symbol for martyrdome. Same with persecution and execution for the disciples. Martyrs.

Can you imagine the symbol of Christianity being some goo oozing out from under a pile of rocks? They've got the best marketing symbol one could offer with the cross, complete with OT validation.

Early and wide attestation - I realize there is going to be disagreement on the Doherty interpretation and the HJ interpretation of the first century epistles. I can't add anything to that general discussion.

But I wish to think more about the crucifixion specifically. A review of my posts would reveal I have been leaning in the direction of a "composite" Jesus. I have not been able to develop it to the point of a defensible detailed accounting. But an important aspect of it is the "validation" of the Christ through OT prophesy.

Here is the "ace of spades" in the Christian deck of cards. I want to be very careful with this one.

I understand your point about developing within the context of one theory or another.

rlogan

OK, I have a better handle on your response now Vinnie. Here are two competing hypotheses: One is that a retroactive search for OT prophesies is conducted at the conclusion of the living years.

Another hypothesis is that OT prophesies are used either to add mythical features to an existing pseudo-Christ, or in the extreme to invent one out of whole cloth.

There are different "marketing" constraints with each of these and I'm thinking them over...

spin

The only building is done off the historical evidence (mustered by the historian), not the generic work of historians.

You seem not to understand your responsibilities in doing history. Relative chronologies are only a small part of your job.

And you're obviously not a teacher.

You are not on the track. I might agree with your relative chronological order to some extent, but that doesn't allow you to say much about history. Until you can say absolutely when a text was written,you have grave difficulties using it for historical purposes.

I no longer expect you to deal with fundamental issues that underpin your position. But by not doing so, apparently not being able to, you nullify any merit to your efforts.


spin

Doctor X

Vinnie:

Which is merely argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the Well and rather makes your skepticism flawed. Rather, you could address him directly--he discusses the issues in A Myth of Innocence. That you do not think too highly of him does not add or subtract to his arguments.

which are all pretty ways of dressing up "reasonable assumptions" and "possible conclusions." You can not make a fact out of them. Return to the thread where I CRUSH and DECIMATE that Base Traitor Amaleq13 [Stop that!--Ed.]--he suggests . . . or perhaps I launch off of his discussion a suggestion . . . that Mk could have made up the baptism narrative to launch his Junior. He does not consider the various subordinations of J the B as examples of "embarrassment," just the needs of his story. I disagree, however, you cannot disprove the idea that Mk made up the story . . . maybe based on some myths or something . . . unless you can produce an earlier baptism story. Indeed, if Amaleq13 is correct, then my "embarrassment"--and yours as well!--collapses to Mk simply not wishing to give any indication that Junior is subordinate to J the B.

A similar process of "reasonable speculation" can be applied to the Passion or, to be "highfalootin' scholars," the kerygma.

What is "uncomfortable" to later "Christians" may not be so for a Mk or earlier writers/mythmakers. Another example is "brothers." Junior having siblings rather causes a problem for any "Cherry Forever" theology regarding Mary! Clearly, Mk--who does not even have a birth narrative--unless you consider the baptism a "birth"--could care less about such later considerations. Mt and Lk do not "like" "the Spook" taking away Junior to the wasteland--who can "take away" the Great One?! For Mk, this is not a problem.

So, returning to the Passion . . . where is your evidence that Mk did not make it up? I am not concluding he did; I am recognizing that you cannot prove he did not. With that goes your certitude.

Recgnizing they are trying to name even reasonable speculation as something more substantial than that is, however.

Vork:

Indeed. At best, for NT research, you can try to make a "time-line" of traditions. For example, given the way Jn has J the B proclaim that his followers cannot follow him over Junior, it is "reasonable" to consider this a later tradition compared to Mk.

Or, perhaps Jn had to deal with J the B groups/remnants/traditions.

I like the second, but it is not at all proven that Jn had any such encounters.

The problem for Vinnie--and anyone studying this stuff--is we cannot "go back far enough." Heck, we cannot date a tradition within ten years of Junior. Even such an early tradition could have been the result of quite a lot of mythmaking.

Unless some antiquities dealer has the Diary of Junior hiding behind his toilet. . . .

--J.D.

Vinnie

When a number of independent criteria start to intersect I certainly can call what is common to them a fact.

Are you actually following the discussion? I dealt with this in the Historical Jesus skepticism FAQ thread and in here as well.

And as a counter to my arguments for crucifixion this is a red herring.

This does not apply to the crucifixion. In the first century world there, crucifixion was pretty much viewed as a horror around the board. I also documented that it (crucifixion) was viewed as a skandalon (embarrassing) very early (first stratum) as evidenced by the Pauline corpus. Yu just cast aside my arguments in favor of bringing up red herrings.

Again, you betray more confusion here and provide further evidence you are not following my comments close enough yet you still feel called to critique them. Whoever claimed the passion was historical or that Mark's account of Jesus' death was accurate? Feel free to quote where I said this.

Since you can't, please read this: I said Jesus was crucified. Not that Mark's entire passion was correct.

Secondly, is it your argument that Mark made up the fact of crucifixion rather than inheriting it? I take it you also strongly opposie the notion of a pre-Marcan passion narrative?

The idea of crucifixion predates Mark. I demonstrated this through multiple independnent attestation:

Pauline corpus (info handed on to Paul see 1 Cor 15)
Mark
John
Barnabas (7:3-5)
Josephus
Tacitus
Pre-Marcan Passsion Narrative?
Special L

I have have a another criteria here: F&F and also possible is the possibility of CPD. There is a link at the very least in Paul.

I am not aware of the "10 years rule". Would you mind explaining it to me? Please state, with support from scholarly material, why one cannot call something virtually certain in ancient history unless the claim comes from within 10 or more years of the events? How is this historical criteria theoretically based? Is it applied to all texts?

Eyewitness followers of Jesus' ministry may have lived into the sixties or seventies or even later. On what basis do you ground your ten years rule? If you wanted to be so hyperskeptical, why not come up with a rule of thumb that looks for information about Jesus during the 1st generation?

Of course that is the whole point of my first stratum criterion!!! You complain we don't have earlier sources but when I point out using material from the earliest period possible you claim it is entirely irrelevant. Strangely, you are entirely inconsistent with yourself. Is early material better or not? As a methodological rule of thumb, I say it is! You seem to imply the earlier the better but nag me when I use this principle. What gives?

Of course, a tradition appearing in a first stratum is insufficient by itself to go back to an historical Jesus but when coupled with other criteria, we have a winner. That is my theoretical basing. The more criteria the better.

You may disagree with my stratification or evaluation of a texts meaning (exegesis) but I do not see how such skepticism of my method is warranted.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Unfortunately you cannot. A number of "independent criteria start to intersect" with regards to a Global Flood, but that does not make a Global Flood a myth.

Period.

Yes and you did not.

Ipse dixit and wrong. It proves a most appropriate analogy.

I merely recognize that you try to transform speculation--reasonable or not--as fact. That you consider the demonstration of your "facts" are really just your speculations as "red herrings" remains your error.

I note that you do not provide the evidence requested. The rest thus proves a non sequitur or, perhaps, a "red herring."

Non sequitur. As is speculation upon whether or not I consider Mk having a source for the passion, having made it up, et cetera. What remains at issue is that you have not justified designating the crucifixion a "fact."

--J.D.

Vinnie

Actually, yes the global flood is a myth (I think you made a typo or word error).

At any rate, do you realize you have not responded to one point I raised save raising a global flood analogy? By pointing out a number of texts that independently, and along with Mark, have Jesus being crucified, I demonstrated what I needed to. You may disagree on the dating and or depdnence of these texts or my exegesis. If YOU DO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STATE EXPLICITLY SO INSTEAD OF WHINING WITH CRYOPTIC REMARKS. That way IU can understand your objection. Thanks.

At any rate, what criteria attest a global flood? Please remember to stay within 100 years for historical evidence. My methodology uses a general 100 years rule for Jesus. Please do not cite me two authors who thought there was a global flood thousands of years after the event. I do not consider this valid historical evidence.

At least you can try to appeal to F&F by citing the numerous flood stories around the globe

I recently revised my methological criteria:

Methodological Considerations Guide:

Positive Criteria

MA= Multiple Independent Attestation and//or Independent Attestion of Forms
EC = Embarrassment or "Against Grain"
FS = First Stratum
ID = Incidental Detail
F&F Friend and Foe
DD = Double Dissimilarity
CPD = Contemporary Primary Data
CC = Coherence Criterion

Negative Criteria

Sa = Single Attestation
Ma = Poor Independent Attestation
CF = Creativity Factor or With the Grain
CT = Competing Traditions
AS = Argument Silence
IC = Incoherence Criterion
SC = Supernatural Criterion

By all means, please feel free to apply the global flood of Noah as described in the Bible to my methodology. Let me know what you come up with!

For negative, at the very least the account suffers from Ma or SA, CT (science), SC (= science = not nough water). Three critieria stronly rule against the account.

For positives, I would dismiss MA, EC, ID, DD CPD and CC. Do you think any of them apply? If so state your reasoning.

At best maybe you can make an an argument based upon the numerous other flood myths but this will not work either. Try if you want.

My reformulation is now even better at weaving fact from fiction.

I would say at least three criteria rule against it and none actualy support it. It is deemed non-historical by my theory.

For Vork's complaint about breaking stuff into complexes as my method certainly does, please see Crossan at 367 of Historical Jesus. He articulates the same notion I have been trying to get across about Gospel material.

Vinnie