Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 05-30-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think the presence of the story in the gospel of Matthew is meant primarily to inflate the importance as Jesus, as a rival to the power of Herod, and the messiah of prophecy. And, it seems to reflect enormous contempt for Herod.

I tend to agree.

The primary point being, there is nothing historical about the birth narrative even though it is depicted with real historical figures and purported historical events.

If the absurd and unproven analytical techniques often applied to the death story were applied to the birth story, you'd end up with everything just as it's stated, except for the magic star and God talking to the maggi, and totally miss the real meaning and purpose and assume it's just a puffed up biography instead.

The "magic star" may be based on actual astronomical events.

There may also be an actual coin circulated circa A.D. 5-11 which depicts this event. Michael Molnar illustrated this coin on the following website;

Revealing the Star of Bethlehem

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think the presence of the story in the gospel of Matthew is meant primarily to inflate the importance as Jesus, as a rival to the power of Herod, and the messiah of prophecy. And, it seems to reflect enormous contempt for Herod.

I tend to agree.

The primary point being, there is nothing historical about the birth narrative even though it is depicted with real historical figures and purported historical events.

If the absurd and unproven analytical techniques often applied to the death story were applied to the birth story, you'd end up with everything just as it's stated, except for the magic star and God talking to the maggi, and totally miss the real meaning and purpose and assume it's just a puffed up biography instead.

Do you include the criterion of dissimilarity in the "absurd and unproven analytical techniques"? How about the criterion of earlier is better? Or the criterion of multiple sources? The criterion of dissimilarity leads us to believe that Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem, which seems to undercut the whole of the birth story. Since it is found in a single later source, it is reasonable to conclude by those three criteria that the story is merely mythical.

Toto · 05-30-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

Do you include the criterion of dissimilarity in the "absurd and unproven analytical techniques"?

Yes

Quote:

How about the criterion of earlier is better? Or the criterion of multiple sources?

These aren't much used in Biblical studies, except to postulate more sources and then claim multiple attestation.

DCHindley · 05-30-2010, 11:59 AM

If you want to see something really weird, input the orbital elements of Halley's Comet into an astronomy program, go to the date computed for it (I believe it was 12 BCE), then make the coordinates for Jerusalem the point of observation. The comet will be directly overhead, at least on some dates. At least it did this when I tried it with a DOS or Win 3.1 version of Skyplot in the mid to late 90s.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The "magic star" may be based on actual astronomical events.

There may also be an actual coin circulated circa A.D. 5-11 which depicts this event. Michael Molnar illustrated this coin on the following website;

Revealing the Star of Bethlehem

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

Do you include the criterion of dissimilarity in the "absurd and unproven analytical techniques"?

Yes

Quote:

How about the criterion of earlier is better? Or the criterion of multiple sources?

These aren't much used in Biblical studies, except to postulate more sources and then claim multiple attestation.

I think you are saying the criterion of multiple sources really is used a lot in Biblical studies, but you don't accept it. As for the idea that the criterion of earlier is better isn't used much in Biblical studies--well, that's absurd, and maybe you meant something else.

Toto · 05-30-2010, 12:26 PM

I've seen posters here claim that Q, Mark, L, and M are separate sources, therefore some contended claim is "multiply attested." I haven't seen much use of the claim that "earlier is better" - probably because there are no really early sources.

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I've seen posters here claim that Q, Mark, L, and M are separate sources, therefore some contended claim is "multiply attested." I haven't seen much use of the claim that "earlier is better" - probably because there are no really early sources.

OK. I shouldn't be so pompous, because you know more of the subject than I do. Maybe it would help if you could give a small list of the criteria you think are used most often, rightly or wrongly, in Biblical scholarship.

steve_bnk · 05-30-2010, 12:57 PM

Modern fiction is often based on real events and chararcters with wide creative license.

The Arthurian tales may have been linked to an historical person, yet look at how it grew and was emebelished over time.

Toto · 05-30-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...OK. I shouldn't be so pompous, because you know more of the subject than I do. Maybe it would help if you could give a small list of the criteria you think are used most often, rightly or wrongly, in Biblical scholarship.

I do not have the time or inclination to do your work for you. Why not read up on it on Neil Godfrey's blog? In the past few months he has posted specific examples of the shoddiness of Biblical scholars when it comes to historical analysis.

Or search the archives here for key words like embarrassment or Doughty. (There is an archived copy of Doughty's class notes that goes into the criteria used in NT studies and their problems.)

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...OK. I shouldn't be so pompous, because you know more of the subject than I do. Maybe it would help if you could give a small list of the criteria you think are used most often, rightly or wrongly, in Biblical scholarship.

I do not have the time or inclination to do your work for you. Why not read up on it on Neil Godfrey's blog? In the past few months he has posted specific examples of the shoddiness of Biblical scholars when it comes to historical analysis.

Or search the archives here for key words like embarrassment or Doughty. (There is an archived copy of Doughty's class notes that goes into the criteria used in NT studies and their problems.)

Sorry, for the misunderstanding, Toto. I am only trying to get a handle on your perspective, and it wouldn't take any work from you beyond typing a small list of maybe the top three criteria that historical scholars generally use, rightly or wrongly. I am not as interested in the criteria that Neil Godfrey or you judges to be shoddy.

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

05-30-2010, 12:26 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I've seen posters here claim that Q, Mark, L, and M are separate sources, therefore some contended claim is "multiply attested." I haven't seen much use of the claim that "earlier is better" - probably because there are no really early sources.

05-30-2010, 12:57 PM	#28
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Modern fiction is often based on real events and chararcters with wide creative license. The Arthurian tales may have been linked to an historical person, yet look at how it grew and was emebelished over time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.