Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-09-2012, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't think your reply really addresses my questions about the vagaries and contradictions of the various NT texts.

What sort of transparent consistencies would you expect to find in a 4th century canonized text of a "New and Strange Holy Writ", appended to a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, published to the Roman Empire by a supreme Germanic barbarian "Pontifex Maximus" whose sole purpose was to obtain alot of gold and then unify and de-Hellenize the empire which he already securely ruled and tightly controlled by his very efficient barbarian army?

You would expect one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter. You have been continually challenged to explain this and you have nothing. This is one reason that no one can take your`Eusebian forgery theory seriously, and why it has been declared OFF TOPIC due to excessive repetition.

Duvduv · 04-09-2012, 07:01 AM

On this I agree with you, Toto. Even if one could argue that the gospels have a certain degree of uniformity in themes and subjects, especially the synoptics, the extent of differences is such that it is something that would not be expected by the work of a centralized authority even if that authority wanted to outsource the production process. That authority would presumably provide guidelines to ensure more than sufficient uniformity and more uniformity than what we find, even if they accepted more than a single text.

Uniformity in the set of epistles would presumably also be required, yet that does not exist either despite the fact that the epistles are always presented as a set, with no heresiologists or other writers claiming that Paul wrote only 4 epistles or 10 epistles or 21 epistles, or that he wrote an epistle to the Jerusalemites or an epistle to the Alexandrians, etc.

Toto · 04-09-2012, 07:03 AM

Let this be the last thread on this subject. If I thought there was any redeeming value in the present thread, I would split this off.

Duvduv · 04-09-2012, 07:09 AM

Although the similarities are limited, I think that it can be suggested that a new regime (i.e. the US government) adopted its world view from a variety of pre-existing ideas as I mentioned. So the Constantinian regime could have found "bits and pieces" and had their writers rework them or redact them while leaving much of the material as it was.

Of course it then becomes interesting to contemplate just WHY the Constantinian regime did NOT in fact seek to create uniformity and allowed its church to present a set of texts that carried unresolved contradictions which the church/state could have EASILY eliminated through interpolation and rewriting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Mountainman, I still fail to understand how your scenario can account for all the variety and differences among so many NT texts that you would argue emerged from one centralized scriptorium over a twelve year period. No matter who the rulers might have been or which religion(s) were involved on all sides of the story.

How and why would Joshua of the Torah have become Jesus, but more than that, why is GMatt constructed the way it is, why is GMark different from GLuke and why is GJohn different from all of them? Why are there different theologies between the epistles and the gospels, and among the epistles?

There are so many things unaccounted for by your scenario, including the possibility that the various Jesus story lines, whether of the canon or outside of it, had roots outside of the imperial scriptorium.

As I have mentioned before, the "scriptorium" of the US constitution ands political ideas relied on bits and pieces derived from the writings of others. There was Polybius, Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. Here is just one link that talks about it:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/constitution.htm

Toto · 04-09-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Although the similarities are limited, I think that it can be suggested that a new regime (i.e. the US government) adopted its world view from a variety of pre-existing ideas as I mentioned. So the Constantinian regime could have found "bits and pieces" and had their writers rework them or redact them while leaving much of the material as it was.

Of course it then becomes interesting to contemplate just WHY the Constantinian regime did NOT in fact seek to create uniformity and allowed its church to present a set of texts that carried unresolved contradictions which the church/state could have EASILY eliminated through interpolation and rewriting.

It's not "interesting." It is evidence that Constantine did not write the gospels from scratch or do the major editing and collating job that you describe. He was stuck with a tradition that included a variety of contradictory texts which reflected the different factions of the Christian church. You can read about the "formation of the New Testament Canon" in various places, and nothing supports either orthodoxy or Pete's conspiracy theories.

Do this background reading before dragging this thread on to a slow and painful death.

Duvduv · 04-09-2012, 08:14 AM

Toto, that's fine, but it's true that the empire wasn't only stuck with traditions, they could fashion traditions, and it was within their power to create a uniform system not unlike what happened with the Muslims. However, they chose to retain the various texts in a form that continued with the contradictions and differences.

mountainman · 04-10-2012, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What sort of transparent consistencies would you expect to find in a 4th century canonized text of a "New and Strange Holy Writ", appended to a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, published to the Roman Empire by a supreme Germanic barbarian "Pontifex Maximus" whose sole purpose was to obtain alot of gold and then unify and de-Hellenize the empire which he already securely ruled and tightly controlled by his very efficient barbarian army?

You would expect one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter.

Firstly, if the NT was in fact composed of one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter, would that rule out forgery in your mind?

Secondly, I presume that simply because the NT is in fact composed of 4 gospels, with inconsistent story lines, multiple birth stories, and an inconsistent account of Easter, that automatically rules out forgery in your mind.

Quote:

You have been continually challenged to explain this and you have nothing.

My position is that such inconsistencies do not automatically rule out forgery, and that such inconsistencies may have been purposefully presented, on a basis that was well known to the ancient and the modern investigator. Namely, that any four witnesses are bound to generate, to some degree, inconsistent reports.

Toto · 04-10-2012, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You would expect one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter.

Firstly, if the NT was in fact composed of one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter, would that rule out forgery in your mind?

That would be consistent with forgery, as with several other scenarios.

Quote:

Secondly, I presume that simply because the NT is in fact composed of 4 gospels, with inconsistent story lines, multiple birth stories, and an inconsistent account of Easter, that automatically rules out forgery in your mind.

It rules out an intelligent forger. Eusebius was not stupid.

Quote:

You have been continually challenged to explain this and you have nothing.

My position is that such inconsistencies do not automatically rule out forgery, and that such inconsistencies may have been purposefully presented, on a basis that was well known to the ancient and the modern investigator. Namely, that any four witnesses are bound to generate, to some degree, inconsistent reports.

The idea that the four witnesses were bound to give inconsistent reports is a modern apologetic excuse for the discrepancies. The ancients did not see the gospels as mere fallible eyewitnesses, but as inspired.

You still have nothing.

aa5874 · 04-10-2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...You would expect one gospel, with one consistent story line, one birth story, and a consistent account of Easter. You have been continually challenged to explain this and you have nothing. This is one reason that no one can take your`Eusebian forgery theory seriously, and why it has been declared OFF TOPIC due to excessive repetition.

May I remind you that I was the one who pointed out this YEARS AGO to mountainman that we would expect one GOSPEL story if it was written by one source.

And, as you may not know that the "TF" may not have even been forged in the 4TH century or Before Julian Emperor wrote "Against the Galilleans".

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius may itself also be the work of several unknown authors.

mountainman · 04-10-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Secondly, I presume that simply because the NT is in fact composed of 4 gospels, with inconsistent story lines, multiple birth stories, and an inconsistent account of Easter, that automatically rules out forgery in your mind.

It rules out an intelligent forger. Eusebius was not stupid.

Quote:

You have been continually challenged to explain this and you have nothing.

My position is that such inconsistencies do not automatically rule out forgery, and that such inconsistencies may have been purposefully presented, on a basis that was well known to the ancient and the modern investigator. Namely, that any four witnesses are bound to generate, to some degree, inconsistent reports.

The idea that the four witnesses were bound to give inconsistent reports is a modern apologetic excuse for the discrepancies.

Setting aside modern apologetic excuses, it is a known fact that both ancient and modern rulers almost always utilized spy networks (see for example Military intelligence)) and were therefore quite adept at processing conflicting witness reports. The modern idea that any four witnesses to any incident will always generate inconsistent reports was therefore well known the ancients.

If the gospels were indeed fabricated, then it is quite natural and reasonable to expect that any intelligent forger must build into them purposeful inconsistencies, otherwise the accounts would be seen as being "too good to be true". Moreover, the gospels were always published in antiquity, after Nicaea at least, along with the "Ammonian" or "Eusebian" Canon Tables, the sole purpose of which was to provide an explicit layout of the so-called discrepancies.

Quote:

The ancients did not see the gospels as mere fallible eyewitnesses, but as inspired.

Source?

There was a massive controversy as soon as the gospels were published at Nicaea, which lasted centuries and centuries. How do we really know your claim is true?

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

04-09-2012, 07:01 AM	#62
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	On this I agree with you, Toto. Even if one could argue that the gospels have a certain degree of uniformity in themes and subjects, especially the synoptics, the extent of differences is such that it is something that would not be expected by the work of a centralized authority even if that authority wanted to outsource the production process. That authority would presumably provide guidelines to ensure more than sufficient uniformity and more uniformity than what we find, even if they accepted more than a single text. Uniformity in the set of epistles would presumably also be required, yet that does not exist either despite the fact that the epistles are always presented as a set, with no heresiologists or other writers claiming that Paul wrote only 4 epistles or 10 epistles or 21 epistles, or that he wrote an epistle to the Jerusalemites or an epistle to the Alexandrians, etc.

04-09-2012, 07:03 AM	#63
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Let this be the last thread on this subject. If I thought there was any redeeming value in the present thread, I would split this off.

04-09-2012, 08:14 AM	#66
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Toto, that's fine, but it's true that the empire wasn't only stuck with traditions, they could fashion traditions, and it was within their power to create a uniform system not unlike what happened with the Muslims. However, they chose to retain the various texts in a form that continued with the contradictions and differences.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.