Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-11-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

Yes, I know that Q is the title that is given to those passages where the Synotics agree. Thank you..

My point was that calling Mark and Q a collection of "patchwork documents" is misleading. We don't know that Q is a document at all. All we have are phrases in Synoptic gospels that in some cases are exact... Could those be "liturgical" in nature? I will be the first to admit that practices in worship possibly guided the creation of the accounts. We also don't know if Q or Mark was an entire document completely intact which makes his "patchwork" comment even more suspect. There is little reason to suspect that Mark or Q was LESS complete when ever Matthew "used" them as resouces than what we have now.

My largest problem is not his facutal errors however. His argument from "silence" is not convincing enough for me. I am supposed to believe that his obvious disdain for christian appologists hasn't influenced his "reading" into the silence? It comes as little surprise to me that the "silences" say that ALL of the sources that are purported to come from the 1st century are all forgeries. Not only do the "silences" contend that the 500 witness are interpolation but that the entire book is forged with the interpolations coming later... One must ask just how many interpolation Mr. Rice might find given that he thinks the entire "formula" is a larger interpolation of which the 500 witnesses is another interpolation?

It gives me the impresstion that almost as soon as the letter was forged its interpolation began. Of course this doesn't surprise me as it appears obvious to me that MR. Rce believes that interpolations continued up until Nicea. So that they wrote and rewrote these books so that they sound "plausible" forgive me if I do not buy into such a grandious conspiracy theory that rivials Dan Browns imigination. All of this is based upon a periscope that appears out of place ... to our 21st century minds.
This theory has the added benefit of fixing all his problems... If some evidence doesn't appear to fit his "theory"... it's an interpolation.
Moreover there is no way to counter this theory because all evidence that supports his view would have been wipped out by the "Winners".
I would have one question.. Would Mr. Rice would have us believe that the government that couldn't wipe out a myth in 300 years and rose to "take it over" is the same government that turned around and with such effectiveness wiped out all dissidents?
That I have difficulty believing.

This all sounds like an argument from personal incredulity, as far as I can untangle it.

I'm not sure what the government would have had to do with this. Interpolations would have been made by the church, which was a small institution in the second century, or by various monks, or perhaps by the person who first gathered Paul's letters together and published them. Are you familiar with the process by which those letters were published?

And the man's name is Price, not Rice, and that would be Dr. Price. If he has some disdain for apologists, it would be because he used to be one and knows what he is talking about.

mens_sana · 07-11-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

We don't know that Q is a document at all.

That is what I addressed. Yes, an argument from incredulity (per Toto) or perhaps one based on an as yet unrevealed a priori.

stonewall1012 · 07-11-2008, 07:04 PM

Toto:"I'm not sure what the government would have had to do with this. Interpolations would have been made by the church, which was a small institution in the second century, or by various monks, or perhaps by the person who first gathered Paul's letters together and published them. Are you familiar with the process by which those letters were published?"

Thanks for correcting my miss spelling of Mr Price. I read it two days ago and misremembered.

Yes... i am familiar with how these letters were published. However, you must not be too familiar with monasticism because one of the first great monastics was Anthony the Great living in the late 3rd century. These monks didn't begin living in convents surrounded by stacks and stacks of books, they were aesticis who (I conceed Platonic influence here) pulled away from civilization and "the world" to live in isolation. The image that your language portrays is the monks of a few centuries later.

So these letters were translated by what ever hand the "christians" could find and then circulated via the bishopric. Which by the way the catholic faith of today barely resembles the faith of the first 3 centuries. Bishops, if Ireanus is to be believed, were the gurantee of the presence of God. The bishops were responsible for the churches under their care. It was a much more decentralized system than the Catholic system now. Which bishop held the ultimate authority isn't even settled today. Eastern Orthodox hold to the "bishop" of Istanbull while the Catholics hold to the Roman bishop.

The type of conspiracy that Mr Price proposes presupposes a strong unified central church government that is backed by a strong Central Secular Government as it's muscle.

My point was that the Secular Government couldn't wipe out the infant church for 300 years but effectively wipedout a large divergent "christianity" not just from existance but from history.

Were there divergent views? Yes... The nag Hammadi library uncovered much more than we thought previously. However, it was of very little surprise. A first year undergraduate ministry student learns that there were several versions of the "gospel" running around in the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries.

It was not "hidden" knowledge; learn anything about church history and you find out these versions existed. More over the explination is that the majority of these works were gnostic. Well the nag hammadi library unveils a host of "lost" gospels and low and behold what do they find... they're gnostic. What a surprise.

What I find interesting about this belief is the inability of the church to properly handle historic documents but dig out the vulgate OT and the Dead Sea scrolls and amazing continuity is found. So the church which handled the OT fairly well is to be believed but the NT is much more suspect? More over the extra biblical sources which quote "NT" verses can be used as verification...

Of course accorinding to Mr. Price virtually as soon as the christian myth was born they took over virtually all copying of all documents. Josphus, Tactitus, Pliny the younger, all these documents were conspired by the church to "interpolate". The power of this institution must have been incredible much more impressive than "big brother".

You might call it argument from "incredulity" except that Mr. Price readily admits he has no documentation for his theory. I am argueing that I don't believe Mr. Price because he has no "evidence". If you wish to call that an argument from "incredulity" than go right ahead.

I find it nearly fantastic that all the extraneous references to Paul were systematically hunted down and interpolated so that they all fit "together" then the sewn together all prior to the council of Nicea of which was firmly divided between Arianism and Athanatious(Sp). These conspirators, who were killing each other, put asside their differences to conspire in secrecy over destroying "other" views. Yes... i find that incredible and hard to believe.

Toto · 07-11-2008, 07:19 PM

You are assuming that there were a lot of Paul's letters floating around. And that there were a lot of other references to Paul. We have no evidence of that.

The question of interpolations is dealt with at lenghth in this thread. It would not have taken that much for the proto-orthodox church in the late 2nd century to produce an official version of Paul's letters, which was passed down and became the only surviving version.

And of course, most of the documents that survived the middle ages only did so because they were copied by monks, who copied what was valuable to them.

Most of the documents from the first and second centuries have not survived. I'm not sure what is so unbelievable about the church being able to publish its official, orthodox version of certain scriptures, and make it stick.

It would help if you gave some references for your assertions.

stonewall1012 · 07-11-2008, 11:33 PM

Toto what do you think of the following quote:"As a matter of historical principle, we cannot simply reject the word of Marcion about this." P-L Couchoud

Do you agree or disagree that we cannot simply reject Marcion's word on this topic?

What "historical principle" would the quote be referring to? Do you think it's a fair assessment that Marcion believed those with whom he disagreed were "interpolating" various texts?

I read the article... nothing all that surprising really... not much that I haven't heard already. (John 8) Its funny really that the quote concerning Price in the middle is nearly the same assessment that I gave his work.

Finally, there's a double edges sword here. If marcion is to be believed interpolations mean there is a document TO interpolate as opposed to a myth that was simply "created" Be careful how far this goes.

Toto · 07-12-2008, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

Toto what do you think of the following quote:"As a matter of historical principle, we cannot simply reject the word of Marcion about this." P-L Couchoud

Do you agree or disagree that we cannot simply reject Marcion's word on this topic?

What "historical principle" would the quote be referring to? Do you think it's a fair assessment that Marcion believed those with whom he disagreed were "interpolating" various texts?

I read the article... nothing all that surprising really... not much that I haven't heard already. (John 8) Its funny really that the quote concerning Price in the middle is nearly the same assessment that I gave his work.

Finally, there's a double edges sword here. If marcion is to be believed interpolations mean there is a document TO interpolate as opposed to a myth that was simply "created" Be careful how far this goes.

I think if you are going to ask me about a quote, you should give a link to the context. I don't know why you think your last paragraph is significant.

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 02:24 PM

I went to your post here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72218

The quote I cited is from chapter 2 the 7th paragraph 14 words in. You seem to think I have something something to "prove" with every line. I don't.

I was making the point that with every gain in this type of venture there is a possible weakness that is exposed. Ie if we believe the author who quoted Marcion is correctly quoting his belief, and more over we believe Marcion is correct it doesn't just open up interpolation it opens up the possibility that there were documents TO interpolate. IF there were forgeries would Marcion the "believeable" heretic have not pointed this out?
This is my only point... there are double edged swords in believeing Marcion for EVERYONE involved.

Toto · 07-12-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

I went to your post here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72218

The quote I cited is from chapter 2 the 7th paragraph 14 words in. You seem to think I have something something to "prove" with every line. I don't.

And man did you butcher that quote. I was quoting Walker, not Couchoud.

Quote:

Marcion accused his opponents of interpolating material; his opponents accused him of deleting material. "As a matter of historical principle, we cannot simply reject the word of Marcion about this." P-L Couchoud argued that Marcion preserved the original text. It seems at least possible that Marcion deleted some material, and his orthodox opponents added some.

So what's the problem with this?

Quote:

I was making the point that with every gain in this type of venture there is a possible weakness that is exposed. Ie if we believe the author who quoted Marcion is correctly quoting his belief, and more over we believe Marcion is correct it doesn't just open up interpolation it opens up the possibility that there were documents TO interpolate.

Everyone agrees that there were Pauline letters. This is not a point.

Quote:

IF there were forgeries would Marcion the "believeable" heretic have not pointed this out?

And what do you think he was doing when he accused his opponents of interpolating material?

Walker's point is not that Marcion was especially believable, but that his claim rings true, based on general practices. You can find the book on Google books now if you want to read more of it.

stonewall1012 · 07-13-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

I went to your post here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72218

The quote I cited is from chapter 2 the 7th paragraph 14 words in. You seem to think I have something something to "prove" with every line. I don't.

And man did you butcher that quote. I was quoting Walker, not Couchoud.

So what's the problem with this?

Everyone agrees that there were Pauline letters. This is not a point.

Quote:

IF there were forgeries would Marcion the "believeable" heretic have not pointed this out?

And what do you think he was doing when he accused his opponents of interpolating material?

Walker's point is not that Marcion was especially believable, but that his claim rings true, based on general practices. You can find the book on Google books now if you want to read more of it.

"And man did you butcher that quote. I was quoting Walker, not Couchoud."

Sorry I "butchered" the line but it was unclear to me exactly who you were quoting.

I find this sad... My point is that in every historical "recreation" solving one puzzle usually only reopens another. I have yet to find perfect solutions to any real historical puzzle...In my experience anyone who believes they've "really" got the truth either one hasn't really examined the data or is arrogant enough to believe they tied up all the loose strings.

This particular string of conversation is finished.

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

07-11-2008, 07:04 PM	#73
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	Toto:"I'm not sure what the government would have had to do with this. Interpolations would have been made by the church, which was a small institution in the second century, or by various monks, or perhaps by the person who first gathered Paul's letters together and published them. Are you familiar with the process by which those letters were published?" Thanks for correcting my miss spelling of Mr Price. I read it two days ago and misremembered. Yes... i am familiar with how these letters were published. However, you must not be too familiar with monasticism because one of the first great monastics was Anthony the Great living in the late 3rd century. These monks didn't begin living in convents surrounded by stacks and stacks of books, they were aesticis who (I conceed Platonic influence here) pulled away from civilization and "the world" to live in isolation. The image that your language portrays is the monks of a few centuries later. So these letters were translated by what ever hand the "christians" could find and then circulated via the bishopric. Which by the way the catholic faith of today barely resembles the faith of the first 3 centuries. Bishops, if Ireanus is to be believed, were the gurantee of the presence of God. The bishops were responsible for the churches under their care. It was a much more decentralized system than the Catholic system now. Which bishop held the ultimate authority isn't even settled today. Eastern Orthodox hold to the "bishop" of Istanbull while the Catholics hold to the Roman bishop. The type of conspiracy that Mr Price proposes presupposes a strong unified central church government that is backed by a strong Central Secular Government as it's muscle. My point was that the Secular Government couldn't wipe out the infant church for 300 years but effectively wipedout a large divergent "christianity" not just from existance but from history. Were there divergent views? Yes... The nag Hammadi library uncovered much more than we thought previously. However, it was of very little surprise. A first year undergraduate ministry student learns that there were several versions of the "gospel" running around in the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries. It was not "hidden" knowledge; learn anything about church history and you find out these versions existed. More over the explination is that the majority of these works were gnostic. Well the nag hammadi library unveils a host of "lost" gospels and low and behold what do they find... they're gnostic. What a surprise. What I find interesting about this belief is the inability of the church to properly handle historic documents but dig out the vulgate OT and the Dead Sea scrolls and amazing continuity is found. So the church which handled the OT fairly well is to be believed but the NT is much more suspect? More over the extra biblical sources which quote "NT" verses can be used as verification... Of course accorinding to Mr. Price virtually as soon as the christian myth was born they took over virtually all copying of all documents. Josphus, Tactitus, Pliny the younger, all these documents were conspired by the church to "interpolate". The power of this institution must have been incredible much more impressive than "big brother". You might call it argument from "incredulity" except that Mr. Price readily admits he has no documentation for his theory. I am argueing that I don't believe Mr. Price because he has no "evidence". If you wish to call that an argument from "incredulity" than go right ahead. I find it nearly fantastic that all the extraneous references to Paul were systematically hunted down and interpolated so that they all fit "together" then the sewn together all prior to the council of Nicea of which was firmly divided between Arianism and Athanatious(Sp). These conspirators, who were killing each other, put asside their differences to conspire in secrecy over destroying "other" views. Yes... i find that incredible and hard to believe.

07-11-2008, 07:19 PM	#74
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You are assuming that there were a lot of Paul's letters floating around. And that there were a lot of other references to Paul. We have no evidence of that. The question of interpolations is dealt with at lenghth in this thread. It would not have taken that much for the proto-orthodox church in the late 2nd century to produce an official version of Paul's letters, which was passed down and became the only surviving version. And of course, most of the documents that survived the middle ages only did so because they were copied by monks, who copied what was valuable to them. Most of the documents from the first and second centuries have not survived. I'm not sure what is so unbelievable about the church being able to publish its official, orthodox version of certain scriptures, and make it stick. It would help if you gave some references for your assertions.

07-11-2008, 11:33 PM	#75
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	Toto what do you think of the following quote:"As a matter of historical principle, we cannot simply reject the word of Marcion about this." P-L Couchoud Do you agree or disagree that we cannot simply reject Marcion's word on this topic? What "historical principle" would the quote be referring to? Do you think it's a fair assessment that Marcion believed those with whom he disagreed were "interpolating" various texts? I read the article... nothing all that surprising really... not much that I haven't heard already. (John 8) Its funny really that the quote concerning Price in the middle is nearly the same assessment that I gave his work. Finally, there's a double edges sword here. If marcion is to be believed interpolations mean there is a document TO interpolate as opposed to a myth that was simply "created" Be careful how far this goes.

07-12-2008, 02:24 PM	#77
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	I went to your post here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72218 The quote I cited is from chapter 2 the 7th paragraph 14 words in. You seem to think I have something something to "prove" with every line. I don't. I was making the point that with every gain in this type of venture there is a possible weakness that is exposed. Ie if we believe the author who quoted Marcion is correctly quoting his belief, and more over we believe Marcion is correct it doesn't just open up interpolation it opens up the possibility that there were documents TO interpolate. IF there were forgeries would Marcion the "believeable" heretic have not pointed this out? This is my only point... there are double edged swords in believeing Marcion for EVERYONE involved.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.