Peter Kirby

This is a patent case of shifting the goal posts.

Metacrock's original statement was this:

"There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alteration in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed above."

Many (if not most) of these hundreds of sources were of the year 301 CE or later. But when some of these documents clearly showed his statements to be false (such as one of 311 CE), Metacrock interpreted his argument thusly:

"But the problem is, it's fourth century, and it was exposed as a forgery. I cut my argument off saying before the fourth century because I knew that after that time there do start to be lots of new forgeries and other variations of the story; the golden legend begins shortly after that time."

So now, a source is good up to the time of 300 CE. The one I quoted was eleven years too late. Ah, so lala. But in this thread Metacrock decides that documents of the late second century or later don't factor in.

Compare: "The Jesus story is re-told countless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alteration in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed above."

Compare: "There's basically one story and all these details hold until well into the second century, if not longer."

So we are now just talking about "well into the second century."

My earlier discussion now has great relevance (and my work in doing it wasn't for nothing, perhaps)--since it uses the very same "cut off point" that Metacrock now proposes, around 180 CE (the late second century).

(Later we can discuss why one would choose to stop considering stories produced 130 years, 250 years, or some other figure past the first text mentioning a given figure--especially given some of the mythological examples that Metacrock cites and the documents describing the variants in their stories--when we return to what I deliberately tabled, and had to because Metacrock never defined what makes a difference important, but which is the weaker part of Metacrock's argument: that non-historical or mythic figures always have contradictory "versions" of their lives.)

This is just cut-and-paste from my earlier post:

(Metacrock had copied a list of apocrypha off the Internet from some web site, similar to the one found here; see also here.)

From the way that you use an unedited list of apocrypha like this, it is clear that you haven't read the texts in order to catalogue what they say about Jesus--hey, that's a tall order, and I haven't read all of these texts either. However, based on what I have read, I would submit two hypotheses about the data:

A. Most of the texts do not contain the eleven points listed above.
B. Most of the texts date after 130 CE.

The importance of the first point should be obvious. If we are going to assert that there are multiple versions of this story that agree, we should appeal to documents that tell the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But most of these documents do not go into any detail on either the death or the resurrection--for example, they don't say it was "at noon" or that there was an "empty tomb"--and thus they can't be counted as multiple versions of the story. Read The Epistle to the Laodiceans or The Apocalypse of Peter or The Acts of Paul and Thecla and tell me how much of the story of the life of Jesus you find therein.

The importance of the second point may require elaboration. I use what I like to term the Hundred Year Rule. If a document dates more than one hundred years after the events described, and if there aren't mitigating circumstances that demonstrate reliability, then I don't take the testimony of that document as good evidence. (Of course, I don't assume that documents within 100 years are always right--that would be folly!) I think that any good historian ought to have some such rule, though they might call it the Fifty Year Rule or the Two Hundred Year Rule. But there comes a point where we've got to say, "hey, that guy's too distant in time to have a clue! Let's find out what's in the earlier sources." In the study of the historical Jesus, that point will come approximately at the time of the canonization of the four gospels. From the late second century onwards, it is evident that Christian writers are not passing on ancient oral tradition but rather relying on written sources (such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) for their information about Jesus. Any document produced after a certain point can be assumed to be familiar with the canonical four; if it treats the subject of Jesus, it does so in a commentative or elaborative or polemical way, but it does not bring new facts to the table. To be generous, I will modify my Hundred Year Rule to a 150 Year Rule to make the deadline 180 CE, but we've got to have some kind of rule.

With these considerations in mind, let's go through the list. If the document does not have more than a couple of the 11 points you list (most frequently none), then I will say that it fails A. If a document does not date earlier than 180, then I will say that it fails B.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text] -- fails A.
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts -- fails A and B.
An Arabic Infancy Gospel -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of James -- (Infancy Gospel) -- fails A.
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] -- fails A.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate] -- fails B.
The Gospel of Bartholomew -- fails B.
The Gospel of Peter -- fails neither A nor B.
The Gospel of Thomas -- fails A.
The Gospel of Philip -- fails A and likely B.
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] -- fails neither A nor B.
The Secret Gospel of Mark -- fails neither A nor B.
The Acts of the New Testament -- fails neither A nor B (part of Luke-Acts).
The Acts of Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Barnabas -- fails A and B.
Martyrdom of Bartholomew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter -- fails A and B.
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Passing of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Paul -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Philip -- fails A and B.
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate -- fails B.
The Death of Pilate -- fails B.
The Acts of Thaddaeus -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Thomas -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- fails A and possibly B.
The Consummation of Thomas -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Adam -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Esdras -- fails A and B.
The First Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Second Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Revelation of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Moses -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Vision of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Peter -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Apocalypse of Sedrach -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Stephen -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Thomas -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of the Virgin -- fails A and B.
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle -- fails A and B.
The Epistle of the Apostles -- fails neither A nor B.
Community Rule -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of James -- fails A.
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar -- fails A and B.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ -- fails A.
John the Evangelist -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of John -- fails A.
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea -- fails B.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans -- fails A and B.
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca -- fails A and B.
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Peter to Philip -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Caesar -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia -- fails A and B.
The Avenging of the Saviour -- fails A and B.
The Three Steles of Seth -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- repeat.

I could have made a mistake or two regarding the dates or exact content of these works. I trust that you will point them out to me.

So, those apocryphal documents that include several of the eleven points and that date before 180 are:

The Gospel of Peter
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Secret Gospel of Mark

Suddenly the list is much smaller and more manageable. To this list we may add the canonical four:

The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Mark
The Work of Luke-Acts
The Gospel of John

Now that we have this list, we need to figure out which works are derivatives of which, and which works could provide independent witness to the eleven points. For example, it is apparent that Secret Mark is dependent on the original Gospel of Mark and that its material does not provide independent testimony to any of the eleven points.

Since we now have a more refined data base to work with, I invite you to formulate your argument in a more convincing way. What is it about the agreements and disagreements of these works that points to the historical nature of the stories?

Okay, cut-and-paste is over. Since the above is a list of apocrypha, it may be helpful to refer to my Early Christian Writings for other types of texts that come from the 1st-2nd centuries. Maybe Meta can then formulate an argument based on the sources that he now wants to use (those that date before the late second century).

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

It's extremely hard to slow the process of ever expanding volume of error and confusion that Metacrock seems to have fostered. At every turn we see some digression into further confusions, so I will try to limit myself to the basic content of the URL provided here below.

D-

Basic assumption: myths change but Jesus doesn't, so as Jesus stories don't proliferate, they are not mythical.

Question: how does one test the assumption?? Answer: (well, there is no answer because you can't test it)

Spurious evidence: the Mithras tradition, having left its Indo-Iranian cradle (yes, Metacrock, not just Indian), changed a lot. Metracrock compares this with the situation within the xian community. This is a false comparison: we need to look at how Mithras changed within the community where he originally was the god, but Metacrock is unable to do this. So, scratch the data about Mithras. He notes that Dionysus came from Asia then cites mythology not from there. Again he is not chronicling the changes within the community but the way it changed when he/it left that community. And so on.

(I guess one shouldn't deal with the tradition that Jesus ended up in India. That wasn't formed within the accepted xian community.)

Here is a finale worthy of someone who seems unacquainted with history, historiography and the historical evidence available on the material he cursorily touches on. First we don't have a "birth certificate" for a Jesus, we have later traditions for a birth, whose narratives in almost no way coincide except for the characters. Second, there seems little point in proffering undated literature of unknown value as if it had already proven historical value. Third, the evidence for the existence of a Julius Caesar is far more secure than any piece of paper you are able to exhibit. I can show you what Caesar looked like at various stages of his life (Augustus provides an even better series of datable statuary). I can point you to physiological descriptions in literary sources which match the statuary. And one can even use the evidence from the statuary to explain medical indications in the texts. Next we have historical events attributed to Caesar, events which are verifiable and which have no other claimed enactor. I can point to coins minted by Caesar, the coins containing historical information in themselves that alone are sufficient to make him a historical figure far above any merely literary figure. Then there are the vast range of aftermath evidence including the rise of his adopted son, the destruction of the assassins, the installation of the principate, etc. It is plain that Metacrock simply hasn't looked at the evidence available for his example of Julius Caesar. In short, literally he doesn't know what he's talking about when he mentions Caesar. (One could also point to Ramses II as being even more historical, as not only do we have his vast construction program, his statuary, Hittite copies of his treaty, and all the artefacts one would ever need, we also have his body, which bears anatomical similarity to his ancestors and to his descendants.)

Metacrock's nice theoretical shuffling of paper is so excruciatingly uninspiring that we have to presume that his copious output can be put down to his zeal rather than anything else. He seems blissfully unaware of the notion of evidence and fancies untested assumptions as though they had any weight.

This little foray of his into apologetics doesn't inspire much interest to read more, especially when he has already proffered another of his unsupported assumptions regarding the fact that no-one had denied the existence of Jesus, so the onus is on anyone now who doesn't accept that Jesus existed to show that he didn't.

Quantity is not the answer, Metacrock. You need a little quality in your content.


spin

gregor

Mr. Kirby
Let me applaud your reasoned approach to Meta's unreasonable arguments. Contrary to Bede's whining, I think all posters have shown an acceptable level of restraint towards Meta's postings over the past week.