Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 07-19-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why? You are trying to make something out of the appearances.

Why it is not relevant:

If you read it in context, it does. Why did it c[o]me before widespread acceptance of Mark, do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It's still a passage that excluded the women
Why it maybe came earlier: It refers to the appearances to the twelve--pre Judas.

It also mentions an appearance to 500 people--amazing!, which is to be found nowhere else, so if it were early, you'd expect it to have been astounding enough to have been picked up by others, but it wasn't. I'd say therefore it was a lot later.

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From Richard Carrier, who has actually investigated this question:

Quote:

11.2. Testimony of Women Was Trusted

Nevertheless, Holding argues that "a woman's place was in the home, not the witness stand," but that has no relevance to his argument. Just because it was unseemly for a woman to appear in court does not mean her testimony was not trusted. Confusing the two is a popular error made by numerous Christian apologists. In actual fact, the evidence proves quite the opposite of Holding's assumption that "women were regarded as 'bad witnesses' in the ancient world." The evidence does not support such a blanket distrust of female testimony, but shows instead that female testimony was often trusted, even in a court of law.

Of course, it is already improper to argue from courtroom decorum to everyday credibility. The Gospels are not court documents. They are, at best (in the case of Luke), histories. Not the same thing. And when it came to this context, of using women as sources for historical claims, there is no evidence of distrust--any more for women than for men of comparable status or condition.[3] Josephus, for example, has his entire account of the heroic sacrifices at Gamala and Masada from no other source than two women in each case--yet shows no embarrassment at this. Josephus often forgets to tell us who his sources were for a particular story, yet here he goes out of his way to report his only sources were women. That makes no sense, unless Josephus regarded his sources as quite respectable, and therefore actually worth mentioning, which is quite the opposite of a woman's testimony being an embarrassment.[4] Of course, as a snob himself, Josephus may have scoffed at the testimony of humble women, just as he would that of humble men, but such elite snobbery was more widely disdained than emulated ...

The quote from Antiquities is part of a list of things spoken by Moses, and does not appear to reflect actual social reality of Josephus' or the gospel's time.

Also, since we are dealing with an exclusively Greek manuscript tradition it should be prudent to examine the position of women in the Greek law codes such as those inscribed at a site on Crete from the epoch BCE.

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Nothing in history is scientific fact because it isn't reproducalbe in real time.

Hi TedM,

The C14 results obtained on gJudas and gThomas are probably reproduceable and indicate late evidence for the physical manufacture of gnostic gospels. Items which can be securely dated such as coins, dated correspondence, dated inscriptions are able to be securely dated time and time again.

While I would rely on C14 for the most part, it is not always reliable (that's why they give date ranges, and it uses assumptions that cannot be proven. Coins, while seemingly a good way to date something, can be faked.

Don't get me wrong, I would usually rely on these things, but nothing is guaranteed.

Quote:

I disagree that ALL of historical analysis is based upon assumptions, and cite the above counter examples.

The above two rely on assumptions too.

Hi TedM,

While I appreciate the fact that C14 and dated coins, inscriptions, mss etc rely also upon certain assumptions, the category of assumptions are not the same. Take the C14. The scientific assumptions involve the decay of isotopes and the result of the C14 test is specifically stated to be a probability density curve. Other tests on the authenticity of coins and inscriptions have their own assumptions - specialized - relating to the tests.

The historical method employs various tests each with their own categories of assumptions. When you say above --- "Don't get me wrong, I would usually rely on these things, but nothing is guaranteed." you are contradicting the assessment of ancient historians, who understand that nothing is guaranteed, but who are still able to construct a historical narrative that best fits all the available evidence (with its assumptions).

Somewhere above, I posted my "creed" on the "historical method" (and its different categories of assumptions), taken from the ancient historian Momigliano. See post #14.

TedM · 07-20-2011, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why? You are trying to make something out of the appearances.

Why it is not relevant:

If you read it in context, it does. Why did it c[o]me before widespread acceptance of Mark, do you think?

Not sure what you are replying to. I already said why I thought it came earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It's still a passage that excluded the women
Why it maybe came earlier: It refers to the appearances to the twelve--pre Judas.

It also mentions an appearance to 500 people--amazing!, which is to be found nowhere else, so if it were early, you'd expect it to have been astounding enough to have been picked up by others, but it wasn't. I'd say therefore it was a lot later.

No, a later tradition that's even better would be more likely to have survived and added to the existing manuscripts. Somehow the 500 never caught on.

aa5874 · 07-20-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...No, a later tradition that's even better would be more likely to have survived and added to the existing manuscripts. Somehow the 500 never caught on.

Why are you arguing about "history" when you are claiming that all of history is AMBIGUOUS and Speculative?

Why do you think your speculation about admitted ambiguity is reasonable?

I really don't understand what you are doing here at all.

aa5874 · 07-20-2011, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

.....It also mentions an appearance to 500 people--amazing!, which is to be found nowhere else, so if it were early, you'd expect it to have been astounding enough to have been picked up by others, but it wasn't. I'd say therefore it was a lot later.

The claim of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to OVER 500 people is a CLEAR indication that the Pauline writings are Late.

The author of Sinaiticus gMark did NOT seem aware that OVER 500 people Witnessed the the resurrected Jesus and had the visitors leaving the burial site DUMBSTRUCK and trembling with fear.

Sinaiticus gMark

Quote:

....8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid....

It is MULTIPLE attested that gMark ended at the 8th verse by the Codex Vatanicus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Doug Shaver · 07-20-2011, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Nope. It isn't fact. Ask the Iranian Jerk that says the Holocaust never happened.

Excuse me? An Iranian jerk denies the Holocaust, and therefore the Holocaust is not a fact?

Just what is your point here? That nothing is a fact unless it is believed by 100 percent of all human beings?

Doug Shaver · 07-20-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Or are you saying that we don't know that women weren't considered reliable witnesses?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

I think the Talmud is pretty clear on that point.

The Talmud may well be clear as day, but I'm not sure what it proves. Can you (a) produce the relevant quotation, (b) tell us when it was written, (c) tell us what we know about who wrote it and what his sources were, and (d) explain how (a)-(c) provides information about opinions that were prevalent in Christian communities of the first and second centuries?

Doug Shaver · 07-20-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It's all theory and subjective.

So is E = mc²

hjalti · 07-20-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Which creed at you talking about? All I've seen is some speculation by you on stuff you didn't cite in Paul, who, incidentally, has no problem with women.

1 Cor 15. Paul repeats the creed regarding the resurrection appearances, and says nothing about the appearances to the women. IF there was a tradition that the first appearances were to the woman as seems to be the case given the later gospel accounts, then one must wonder why the all-important 'creed' excluded their mention. One reasonable speculation is that it was perceived to not help, and to possibly hurt the message. 'Embarrassment' is a loose term, and is used in this manner.

p.s. I don't really think this is an open and shut case.. It's all theory and subjective.

Wait a minute:

1. Paul doesn't mention the woman as witnesses, because it was so embarassing.
2. Mark doesn't mention the woman as witnesses (since he explicitly says that they didn't tell anyone about it), because it was so embarassing.
3. Matthew and Luke add the story about the women being witnesses (telling the men what happened) because it was so well known that, although they would rather not mention this embarassing fact, they couldn't get away with it since it was so well known.

Seems very probable to me!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.