Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-18-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

spin, if you are the one who thinks that the gospels began as fictional literature for entertainment, then forgive me for conflating you with those crazy Jesus mythers. :Cheeky:

Is that sort of buffoonery meant to keep up your end of the conversation?

This doesn't answer either question. If you analyse a text, how do you know over what sort of period from its genesis to its final touches? How then would you know which biases belong to which period of time? With Matthew, what did other groups write about it? You just don't know.

(They could always mend tents.)

Peter is interpolated into the text. Paul outside Gal 2:7-8 only knows Cephas, but these verses were added after Petrine ascendency. If you would like to refer to Cephas, how do you know from Galatians that Cephas was a christian rather than a messianic Jew who knew nothing about a crucified savior?

This is the first thing I can agree with, but your "common sense" won't help you eke out those clues, just as it won't help you understand Swahili. You need to know how it works from inside the culture, most of which is unavailable to you. Normally in such a case the historian remains non-commital when they have insufficient data, but biblical studies is a punter's field.

This is not science. You can't test any significant theories you construct, because all the necessary subjects are dead. Scientific models work because you develop means of reproduceable checks. You don't have that luxury in history. Lots of things you just can't check. How do you check if Jesus really did exist in the world? I can show you statues of Julius Caesar, reflecting different ages of the man and even signs of his medical issues touched on in ancient texts. I can show you coins he had minted that reflect what we learn about him in literature. There are even traces on the battle fields the literature says he fought on. What on earth can you show regarding this Jesus? Embarrassment.

Did the person who wrote the prologue write any or much of the rest of the gospel? Are you depending on the veracity of a comment you can in no way at all test? ("Mommy, mommy, I keep running round in circles!" "Shut up or I'll nail you other foot to the floor.")

For centuries Hebrews was thought to be consistent with the (rest of) the Pauline corpus... Consistency is the necessity of most fiction. It is not a sufficient condition for historical research.

Ok, give me three non-trivial facts you know about the author or authors or authors and redactor(s) of the gospel of Matthew.

(I'm pleased to see that although you don't seem to know much about the matter, you've at least got a strong apologetic to cover your hind region.)

When we can't even decide on that time, your analyses based on it aren't very promising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...at least no more than The Lord of the Rings would contribute to our knowledge of early 19th century England, but you cannot seriously expect anyone else to give that possibility any weight at all. Just read the first passage in the gospel of Luke.

So I gather you are able to accept the prologue to Luke as though it were gospel... but on what grounds? Which parts of the text (if any) do they represent? Is the "many" in the first verse a real many or is it just a rhetorical device to impress the reader? Was the second verse written around the time of Marcion to lend support to the apostolic primacy polemic? Do you honestly believe the third verse? Isn't there sufficient evidence to indicate that the writing of Luke, being based on Mark and Material also found in Matthew as well as other material unique to the Lucan gospel, was certainly not eyewitness material and to find that the verse doesn't fit the reality of the text?

One needs to be radically skeptical, rather than willing to accept or reject issues that lack evidence. Jesus mythicism and Jesus historicism are not able to support themselves with evidence. If history is meaningful to you, you can't just jump on the apologist's bandwagon. He has reasons to believe it, you may not need them. However, your "common sense" has you believe them. And believing means not doing your job.

spin

Spin, it isn't about jumping on the apologist's bandwagon. It is about taking the explanation that best fits the evidence. Here is the first passage of Luke 1:

¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I still haven't got a handle on your theory, but you seem to think that the gospels were written as fictional entertainment. And the introduction to the Gospel of Luke makes the gospel seem very plainly an account that is meant to be believed as reality. I don't have to believe that the author actually got most of the things right (I don't), and I don't have to believe he is honest (I don't), but his intention seems clear. What is your interpretation?

spin · 07-18-2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Spin, it isn't about jumping on the apologist's bandwagon. It is about taking the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Did you really take this statement seriously while you were writing it? Every pundit and his dog would spew such a predigested reaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Here is the first passage of Luke 1:

¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous post, which intimates I have a copy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I still haven't got a handle on your theory, but you seem to think that the gospels were written as fictional entertainment.

Where the hell are you getting this entertainment slop that you keep babbling about? The first half of your previous sentence started out somewhat refreshingly. Of course you haven't got a handle on my "theory": I haven't proffered one. Theories are supposed to fit facts and we've got so few in this quagmire. You don't really float theories when the facts are thus sparse now, do you? Well, theories that you give any credence to....

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And the introduction to the Gospel of Luke makes the gospel seem very plainly an account that is meant to be believed as reality. I don't have to believe that the author actually got most of the things right (I don't), and I don't have to believe he is honest (I don't), but his intention seems clear. What is your interpretation?

Here is what I said last post on the prologue:

Which parts of the text [of Luke] (if any) do they represent? Is the "many" in the first verse a real many or is it just a rhetorical device to impress the reader? Was the second verse written around the time of Marcion to lend support to the apostolic primacy polemic? Do you honestly believe the third verse? Isn't there sufficient evidence to indicate that the writing of Luke, being based on Mark and material also found in Matthew as well as other material unique to the Lucan gospel, was certainly not eyewitness material and to find that the verse doesn't fit the reality of the text?

The passage doesn't show intention, it hides it, and a comparison with the body of the text undercuts the veracity of the prologue, making it an attempt to manipulate the reader. How do you cut through the prologue writer's rhetoric? It certainly wasn't written by the person who wrote most of the gospel. Statements about eye-witnesses obviously don't reflect reality, because the text is clearly based on previous written material. So, far from his intention being clear, other than wanting his readers to believe his text his intentions are quite opaque.

spin

ApostateAbe · 07-19-2009, 12:54 AM

spin, I am done talking with you.

spin · 07-19-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

spin, I am done talking with you.

But you won't be done imputing ideas onto other people that you have no justification for. Wouldn't you normally think such behavior was just downright silly?

(People who have been reading here over a wide period know what sort of theories I have.)

And I still have nothing tangible for why you believe what you do. An infidel who accepts the apologists' presuppositions has lost the battle for understanding his/her infidelity. Scientific skepticism is the only way forward for the infidel. You must have a strong epistemological basis: you must know how you know what you know, otherwise you just don't know it.

:wave:

spin

spamandham · 07-19-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The exterior vs. interior distinction is not a distinction that is important to the people of the time and place. They think of the Western Wall as part of the original structure

We don't know what people of that time thought of the status of the Western Wall. We know how people *today* think of it, and we know there were no historical references to it prior to the 11th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall

Quote:

Consider that the Gospel of John, written in 90 CE, does NOT have this same prophecy. Instead, per John 2, it reinterprets the "temple" to be the body of Jesus Christ.

....one of the many reasons I think Jesus is probably not historical, or is possibly simply rooted in Joshua (who is probably also not historical).

Upon what do you base the 90CE dating for John?

Quote:

If they believed that the prophecy came true, then it would seem to be a huge advantage to them, and they likely would not have reinterpreted it to a metaphor.

Unless of course, there was no prophecy, and the Gospels were written after the fall of the temple by people trying to figure out why their god had abandoned them. The destruction referred to by Daniel *had already happened* in ~600 CE. Prior to the outcome of the Jewish wars, the Jews thought they would emerge victorious with their 2nd temple intact.

Imagine the emotional devastation to Jews caused by the fall of the 2nd temple, and how they would likely react to it. How can you still be God's chosen people if that happened? A new religion was needed to explain it, and Christianity as we know it was born.

Quote:

One prophecy almost came true, and the rest of them did not. There is nothing unbelievable about that, and it should not be used to move the date of the gospel of Mark with little else to support it.

If we "move" the date of Mark to > 130 CE, then *all* the prophecies came true, other than the return of Jesus, as we would expect for a post Hadrianic text.

By the way, we are not *moving* any dates, we are trying to establish them for the first time. The traditional datings of the gospels are not based on valid analysis, but are holdovers from the time when Christian history and apologetics were one.

Quote:

"this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," becomes more embarrassing to the authors.

Are we to believe that Jesus actually said "let the reader understand"? Both the author and the audience understood that Jesus' monologue was written by the author rather than an actual historical quote by Jesus. Such a practice was commonplace at the time, which is why the anachronisms are no big deal, and are probably even intentional.

The author was referring to *his* generation, not Jesus' generation, and his audience knew that. There was no failure of prophecy, because Mark 13 was not intended to be prophetic in the first place. Instead, it's meant to explain (in a theological sense), the horrific events of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.

ApostateAbe · 07-19-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The exterior vs. interior distinction is not a distinction that is important to the people of the time and place. They think of the Western Wall as part of the original structure

We don't know what people of that time thought of the status of the Western Wall. We know how people *today* think of it, and we know there were no historical references to it prior to the 11th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall

....one of the many reasons I think Jesus is probably not historical, or is possibly simply rooted in Joshua (who is probably also not historical).

Upon what do you base the 90CE dating for John?

Unless of course, there was no prophecy, and the Gospels were written after the fall of the temple by people trying to figure out why their god had abandoned them. The destruction referred to by Daniel *had already happened* in ~600 CE. Prior to the outcome of the Jewish wars, the Jews thought they would emerge victorious with their 2nd temple intact.

Imagine the emotional devastation to Jews caused by the fall of the 2nd temple, and how they would likely react to it. How can you still be God's chosen people if that happened? A new religion was needed to explain it, and Christianity as we know it was born.

If we "move" the date of Mark to > 130 CE, then *all* the prophecies came true, other than the return of Jesus, as we would expect for a post Hadrianic text.

By the way, we are not *moving* any dates, we are trying to establish them for the first time. The traditional datings of the gospels are not based on valid analysis, but are holdovers from the time when Christian history and apologetics were one.

Quote:

"this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," becomes more embarrassing to the authors.

Are we to believe that Jesus actually said "let the reader understand"? Both the author and the audience understood that Jesus' monologue was written by the author rather than an actual historical quote by Jesus. Such a practice was commonplace at the time, which is why the anachronisms are no big deal, and are probably even intentional.

The author was referring to *his* generation, not Jesus' generation, and his audience knew that. There was no failure of prophecy, because Mark 13 was not intended to be prophetic in the first place. Instead, it's meant to explain (in a theological sense), the horrific events of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.

You asked, "Upon what do you base the 90CE dating for John?" I rely on the consensus of critical scholars. Per the page Toto provided, they seem to make that date based on the anti-Jewish theme of the Gospel of John and the clues that it is in the context of Christians being banned from the synagogue, which apparently happened around 90 CE, but I don't really know details beyond that.

You say,

Quote:

Are we to believe that Jesus actually said 'let the reader understand'? Both the author and the audience understood that Jesus' monologue was written by the author rather than an actual historical quote by Jesus. Such a practice was commonplace at the time, which is why the anachronisms are no big deal, and are probably even intentional.

The author was referring to *his* generation, not Jesus' generation, and his audience knew that. There was no failure of prophecy, because Mark 13 was not intended to be prophetic in the first place. Instead, it's meant to explain (in a theological sense), the horrific events of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.

I think that is a very thoughtful and informed opinion. I didn't know about the "let the reader understand" phrase in the gospels. And it is certainly not enough to conclude that the "generation" Jesus meant was the reader's generation instead of his own generation. Why? Because Jesus rephrases another set of apocalyptic prophecies in the same gospels like so:

"But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

The Christian apologists tend to explain both these prophecies as referring to different things. The "this generation" prophecy refers to the actual end of the world (but a "generation" is an epoch of time), and the passages saying, "some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God," actually refers to the Transfiguration. I strongly reject that ad hoc explanation, an explanation intended only to keep the gospels seeming true. I take a more common sense and unified approach to interpretation, and I claim that both sets of prophecies refer to the same thing with the same deadline--the world will end within the lifetimes of Jesus' listeners. The same two sets of failed prophecies are found in all three synoptic gospels. Later Christian writers were embarrassed by the passing of the deadline, and I can refer you to those passages if you like.

You have an interesting theory, that Christianity began as a way to cope with the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. I take the theory that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet to be much more unified and consistent with the evidence (we don't have to redate the writings of the apostle Paul), but your theory at least gives an explanation for why and how the myth might have began, which is what is really needed.

spamandham · 07-19-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You asked, "Upon what do you base the 90CE dating for John?" I rely on the consensus of critical scholars.

Ok, although I think that dating is worthless, based on apologetic tradition rather than serious analysis, you accept it, so let's go with it. Let's keep in mind that from a Biblical standpoint, 40 years is a generation, and in ancient times, living to the age of 70 was very rare and 80 was unheard of.

Quote:

"But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

If John was written in 90 CE, and if the prophecy is in regard to those standing near Jesus, all of whom are supposedly young men (rather than new borns), then this was a failed prophecy on the day it was penned, as any referent would have been 70-80 as a minimum.

If we believe John would not record a failed prophecy that he knew was failed, then he can not be referring to the generation Jesus was talking to.

I guess I don't know how to get people to stop believing that the ancients were playing the role of dutiful reporters of history when they penned these types of stories.

Quote:

The Christian apologists tend to explain both these prophecies ...

IMHO, it's best to completely ignore apologetics or theologically rooted explanations. They are worse than worthless.

Quote:

I take a more common sense and unified approach to interpretation, and I claim that both sets of prophecies refer to the same thing with the same deadline--the world will end within the lifetimes of Jesus' listeners.

There's only a deadline if we believe that these ancient authors were dutifully recording what they thought Jesus had actually said, and their readers believed that to be the case.

Is there a reason to make such assumptions?

bacht · 07-20-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulK

Quote:

I don't think we're going to come to agreement here, so I'll just ask one question. Which is simpler, that the author of Mark basically just guessed at things that were going to happen and they came uncannily true ~60 years later, or that it was written 60 years later and the author was a bit sloppy in his prose, the signs of which are evident even from your perspective?

Of course he DIDN'T get things "uncannily right".

So the real comparison should be whether the creator of the prophecy reinterpreted Daniel and got one lucky hit, among a number of misses (as I say) or whether he was a hopeless incompetent unable to even notice that the prophecy he was creating didn't fit his own timescale. (because no Christian writing in 130 AD could think that the generation of the disciples was still alive).

And let us not forget that your version demands a very late date for Mark (130 AD or later) - and presumably Matthew and Luke, too (since Matthew's version is very close to Mark's, and Luke gives a version which appears to have been "corrected" to indicate the failure of whichever revolt is meant)

Isn't there irony here? You're talking about how Mark uses Daniel to make a prediction about the fall of the temple. Daniel itself is completely "prophecy after the fact", a literary fiction about a Jewish noble in the Babylonian court making predictions about coming empires down to Antiochus IV four hundred years later. Why couldn't Mark have done the same thing?

show_no_mercy · 07-20-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Here is the first passage of Luke 1:

¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Maybe spin was trying to get you to ask more critical questions about the text. You're assuming that the Luke found in our current Bibles was the "Luke" that was written by the original author. Is there any reason to believe this when Christians simply added or deleted text when it didn't fit their agenda?

Christians have faith as a priority, not "scripture", not facts. If "scripture" (I use "scripture" in quotes because the texts found in our current "New Testament" weren't considered "holy scripture" until sometime in the 2nd century) or facts contradict faith, then scripture has to be changed to align with the Christians' faith. This process happened repeatedly prior to the "canonization" of the New Testament, which was catalyzed by Marcion's canon. Each "Christianity" of the 2nd century and beyond accused the other "Christianities" of forging texts. Why assume that there was only one sect of Christianity (the one that won) that was telling the "truth"?

Our current "Luke" was written as a polemic - more than likely a polemic against Marcion, and most definitely a polemic against "Mark". So again, what reason do you have to assume that the portion of "Luke" that you quoted was original to the text? How could "Luke" be getting his info from "witnesses" if he's copying "Mark", who by tradition wasn't a witness? If you ask yourself these sort of questions, then the next step might be to find out who was the first Christian witness to that portion of Luke...

PaulK · 07-20-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Isn't there irony here? You're talking about how Mark uses Daniel to make a prediction about the fall of the temple. Daniel itself is completely "prophecy after the fact", a literary fiction about a Jewish noble in the Babylonian court making predictions about coming empires down to Antiochus IV four hundred years later. Why couldn't Mark have done the same thing?

The creator of the prophecy could have done many things. For instance, hearing of Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the Temple, he might have believed that to be the "Abomination". Caligula's attempt failed - it was delayed until his assassination and the idea was abandoned. THe question is what the evidence indicates that he DID do.

For one thing, Daniel is almost unique in presenting an impressively detailed and accurate account of events. It is easy to match history to Daniel's account. Mark is vague and lacking in accurate detail as we have seen. We do not have a reference to Caligula, for instance. Nor to the Year of Four Emperors (which had an impact on the Jewish Revolt). A Daniel-like account would be very likely to contain identifiable references to these. Even the fall of Jerusalem is absent. The author of Luke was sufficiently dissatisfied with the prophecy to "correct" the version in his Gosepl to better fit events.

And there is an irony - Daniel was not ALL written after the fact. A few verses in Chapter 11 are "predictive" - and failed. Thus we can date the writing of those verses to before the time those events were meant to occur. Which, of course, is exactly what I am doing with the prophecy found in Mark (although we cannot assume that the entire Gospel is that early.)

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

07-19-2009, 12:54 AM	#63
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	spin, I am done talking with you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.