Chili

That is a good beginning but why must he cling to the historical Jesus? Why not throw out all of history and make the thing work for you instead of against you?

Bede

A13, most of my comments referred to Vork's stuff on Mark, rather than your own. As I said, you are entitled to disbelieve anything you like but I don't think anyone is entitled to make up some other stuff in its place. And yes, Jehanne, I think most psychological reconstructions are BS whether done for Peter or the local psycho-killer. Or you.

Vork, your methodology involves inventing non-existent links and assumes Mark is a literary genius. This is wrongheaded.

Familyman, I was challenging Sheehan's new invention. You tried to switch the subject to the resurrection. Hence you were erecting a strawman (although maybe you were no reading carefully enough to realise this). The thread is NOT about whether the resurrection happened, it is about whether anyone should care about Sheehan's reconstruction.

So is anyone going to defend Sheehan's reconstruction? I presume that as you have all decided to attack something else entirely you are not and this thread can be closed.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Amaleq13

So you would deny everyone from speculating when the only existing accounts cannot be relied upon? That would take a healthy chunk out of all history, Bede, so I suspect you reserve this rather odd rule only for your sacred text. You attacked Sheehan apparently for failing to join you in uncritically taking the Gospel stories at face value. That makes no sense.

Defend it against what? Your attempt to attack him has been shown to apparently rely upon an uncritical acceptance of the Gospel stories at face value. I stated very simple and obvious reasons why such a position is untenable. As far as I can see, Sheehan's reconstruction has yet to be attacked.

If we're going to assume for the sake of argument that these stories must reflect some historical core, Sheehan's speculations seem to me entirely reasonable. Like any speculation based on that assumption and working with these stories, it suffers from a distinct absence of reliable evidence.

Chili

To believe in a physical crucifixion and a metaphysical resurrection is to have one leg in heaven and one on earth and that is like hell on earth. What more do you want?

Jehanne

The fact is that psychological evaluations are admissible evidence in family law, civil law, as well as criminal law. As for me, I do not have a criminal record nor have I ever been arrested for any offense. I do not have any traffic tickets, and my last parking ticket was over five years ago!

Vorkosigan

<stunned> You're right! Why, I went in with the assumption that Mark was a genius! And all of my links are invented! None are deduced! <sigh>

Let me know when you have meaningful comments to make.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

It seems simple enough to show that the methodology is flawed. All you need to do is show that the same broad can be easily invented for other ancient texts. Why don't we find this alleged pattern in the other Gospel stories if it is all in the mind of the observer?

What I find compelling about his results is that the "understory" only appears intact in Mark's version. This seems to eliminate the possibility that the apparent pattern is inherent to the general story rather than the efforts of a particular author.

Jehanne

Was there really a “talking dog� in first-century Israel/Palestine:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...actspeter.html

Family Man

And if you'd read carefully, Bede, I pointed out that the details that you brought up had nothing to do with with Sheehan's reconstruction. I'm fully aware of Sheehan's reconstruction, and he's not saying that any of it is a historical fact -- merely that it is a plausible and realistic alternative to the naive approach of taking what the bible says happened. I think you need a more charitable approach to both what I write and what Sheehan wrote.

And, as Amaleq said, I haven't seen you make a serious case against Sheehan's position. All I've seen is insistence that we must take the post-Resurrection accounts at face value, which is a historically ludricrous position to take.

Bede

Nope, I never said this. What I said was that we cannot discard the evidence and make something else up instead. I said (this is now the third time) that it is fine to say 'I don't believe this' but not fine to invent an alternative not firmly grounded in evidence. History is not about being plausible (that is the historical novelist) but using evidence.

I have no other objection to Sheehan's piece except it is not an effort at history. Hence, there is no reason why a Christian should give it the time of day. If it is based on some evidence I'd like to see it. The details I brought up were all denied by Sheehan and their denial is essential to his reconstruction.

I do hope this is now clear and you will all now stop misrepresenting what I have said. Familyman's comments on charitability apply to his own remarks in spades.

Yours

Bede