pierneef

Saying that I continually misunderstand the point of your review is to present a postulate that you know cannot be argued one way or another. I read the review twice, and if it is so opaque that must be the responsibility of the writer. As far as I am concerned, it was mainly slaughter by innuendo. You proved nothing. But let that be.

We clearly disagree sharply, and we both feel that the other is misrepresenting our positions. You treat me, patronisingly, as the expert, talking to the novice who has no background whatsoever in this topic. However, it would be a nice example to the other posters on this Forum, if we were to treat one another nicely from now on, forget the edge on our words, (I apologise for the dege on mine), and see if we can actually learn from one another. Let's leave aside the review, and focus on what I think is your core objection (if I am wrong correct me):

OK, this is one that we can get our teeth into. This definition is concerned about "endowing a text with religious authority. That is not the same as saying that the totality of the Gospels, for example, are "forged", that there is no traditional foundation whatsoever that survives the forging. If that isnt what you are saying, then please explain what your view is. If that is what you are claiming, then please explain how you know. You dont have to cite all the references, I want this demand to be reasonable..what are the two or three things that lead you to that conclusion, and that you believe can stabnd up to scholarly scrutiny.

And, why do you read these books ? Why after you read the "Historical Jesus" did you bother to read the "Birth of Christianity" ?

Llyricist

Vork didn't really make this clear, just as historical reference, the Panzers went AROUND the Maginot line, they did not charge at it mindlessly and destructively.

Steven Carr

The fact that Jesus spoke the words as a metaphor does not contradict the fact that he spoke the words.

So Mark appears to be flat-out denying that Jesus said something very similar to what the Gospel of John says was an authentic saying.

pierneef

I admit my error...I read this too fast

Vorkosigan

That's fine, but since you have publicly demonstrated you don't know anything about Crossan and didn't understand my review, your comments aren't worth much, are they?

Damn! I was trying not to be patronizing. But it was hard to avoid sounding that way, given the state of your "review." I almost never mention my academic credentials, since they are both minor and irrelevant to the task at hand. But you specifically challenged them.

It's not my core objection, but a very minor point. My core objection is contained in my analysis of Crossan's discussion of the Temple Ruckus, in which claims are made but not demonstrated, and conclusions are ignored once made. Those are my core objections.

We have two issues here. First, what I said about Crossan. And second, what pseudoepigraphy means. My statement about Crossan was fundamentally a criticism of the way he uses rhetoric to deflect and mislead the critical reader. I picked "forgery" because I found that one extremely annoying, personally.

Second, what does it mean to adopt the mantle of another? When 2 Pet poaches most of his letter from Jude but claims he's writing as Peter, what is going on? Forgery. When Mark creates his Sanhedrin trial by doubling his Pilate trial, he's engaging in forgery. From a literary point of view, that's creativity, but people regard Mark as history (I am not sure that Mark did, so perhaps in Mark's case the term might be inappropriate.....). When John re-arranges data from other authors to create a new story of Jesus, that's forgery. Luke definitely engaged in forgery, for he more or less claimed to be writing history, but we know he copied Mark and rearranged it. Forgery. When someone writes a letter in Jesus' name to King Apgar, it is forgery. The scholars might have a polite technical term for it, but the ancients knew perfectly well what forgery was, and you will search the ancient secular literature in vain for any approval of the idea of stealing someone else's name to write your own document.

I am not sure what you want here. Are you asking me to demonstrate that the epistles are all forgeries? Or that the Gospels are? Or what? Or are you asking me to explain why pseudoepigraphy = forgery? Done above.

Actually, I read them in reverse order, because Birth of Christianity is so good, I went on to read his earlier Historical Jesus, which turned out to be a disaster. If you are asking my why I am mastering this discourse, it is because I am hooked on the topic. It's absolutely fascinating.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

I didnt tell you about my academic background either. My position is that your review is not convincing because it appears to me that it has emerged from pre-existing conclusions, very negative ones, which you state up front; and because your claims are simply stated and not (for me, anyway) well analysed or debated ( rather as you charge Crossan of doing).

I find statements that I clearly dont understand your review, or dont understand Crossan, very patronising. How else could they be interpreted ?

I am not wowed with academic credentials. I, like you, have read dreadful commentaries written by highly qualified theologians and christologists.

There is undoubtedly much evidence of textual tampering and, if you like, forgery, although I would not use this term. But even if authorship is falsely claimed, it doesnt automatically follow that the content is a total lie. How does one ever prove that, except by contention the way you seem to do ? How does one show that there is nothing of the original tradition left, simply by demonstrating that claims of authorship are false ? This is what I am challenging you to do. Give me a passage which Crossan and others are willing to analyse, even if they do regard it as uneven in terms of authenticity, and show me the methodology by which you prove that it is totally false and contains none of an older, more authentic tradition whatsoever.

I await, with interest, this demonstration, or explanation as to why you cannot or are unwilling to present it.

Rick Sumner

This isn't in response to your critique of Vorkosigan's review, however I'll note nonetheless why I can't offer the converse anymore than Crossan can argue the affirmative with anything approaching "proof."

When I say there is no objective methodology, I don't mean every methodology but mine, or every methodology except the ones that agree with me most. I mean every methodology.

Historical method is a non-sequitor.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I understand that you have this position.

If I am forced to reveal and document a lack of knowledge and understanding on your part, how can I avoid sounding patronizing, especially in a text-based medium?

Never did I use the term "total lie." I said they were largely, perhaps even totally forged.

pierneef, I am claiming that the "original tradition" doesn't exist, because in wherever its advocates claim that it crops out, in almost every case it can be shown to be fiction. The problem is obtaining evidence from the gospels that there was an "original tradition." No one has a methodology for doing that, and once you can demonstrate widespread fictionality, have can you get support for historicity from these documents?

That's not a problem. See my analysis of the Temple Ruckus (scroll to the middle). Lots of exegetes see this as a real event. Haha! it's a fiction on every level.

The problem is that there is nothing to analyze in so many cases, because NT scholars simply "declare" what is right and wrong, just as Crossan did in this case. After he had disposed of the Temple Ruckus as a fiction, he then went on to claim that Jesus must have done something against the Temple in order to cause his arrest. The claim is nice, but without the Temple Ruckus there is no evidence to support it. The key to my critique of Crossan is understanding that I am responding to this penchant among NT scholars to declare, without evidence or argument, the nature of texts. Have you read this book? And, do you have a copy still?

You have it. How many other pericopes do you need? I am writing a historical commentary on Mark, and could probably supply fifteen or twenty others. For example, you can peek at the first draft of my commentary on Mark 15:1-15 here, still in draft but you can see some of the problems with that passage already. There are several other pericopes there, but they are not in a very advanced state. Alas, my commentary is mostly still in early draft form, I don't expect to finish it until October.

I await your comments, which could be very helpful.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

Thanks, I will indeed study these carefully and respond.