FathomFFI

Here's a little history for you.

Actually, the words "extreme penalty" literally refer to "crucifixion."

The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts.

In fact, the crucifixion was put at the top of what is known as the summa supplica, giving it distinction as the extreme penalty, with the # 2 spot being filled in by burning creamtio, and the third being interchanged between decapitation decollatio, and of being fed to wild beasts damnatio ad bestias.

Also, it should be noted that none of the other means of capital punishment have ever been referred to as "the extreme penalty."

Therefore, if IIDB was not intended to promote propaganda, then what are you doing making false claims that contradict history?

Newfie

Unless, of course, there was a historical Jesus, or similar figure, who is the original source of these sayings.

I think that the JS assumes that Q and Thomas are recordings of the wisdom coming from one (or more) of the wandering sages who were common in the Near East during the early Roman occupation. This historical figure one might call Jesus, for lack of a competing name, and what he said, the little tidbits of wisdom, were recorded in both Q and Thomas independent of each other, at about the same time.

Q went on to serve as a basis for the sayings of Jesus appearing in the canonical gospels and Thomas was read by one of the less successful “Christianities” until that form died away and nobody with any interest in that particular gospel was left to copy it any further.

Roger Pearse

I'm not following the thread, but just reading that last statement provokes an obvious reflection.

Agreement among a large number of scholars means nothing whenever the issue is one that is controversial in terms of politics or religion, and the consensus reflects the wishes of those who appoint them.

The humanities seems a bit prone to this corruption; it is important for us to be remember that in the humanities theories don't get tested by sticking them in a test-tube and waiting to see if it goes blue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

FathomFFI

I would almost agree totally. However, there is something to be said for one presenting the best supported argument which points to the best and most likely conclusion.

It may not prove anything conclusively, but from a rational point of view it would be the foremost authority, and that should be considered "something" of value as opposed to "nothing."

Roger Pearse

I think that what we need to see, always, is the evidence. On technical subjects it may be impossible for us to master (although in the age of the internet this is less true than it was). But on matters of ancient history, the corpus of ancient data on any given subject is almost invariably small, and easy enough to master. So surely that is what we want? After all, we can roll our own opinions -- what we need are the raw *facts* on which whatever opinions we hold should be based.

I'm wary of appeals to authority other than technical ones. If the consensus of paleographers is that a manuscript is written in the hand of the 3rd century BC, I would tend to accept that. A consensus of theologians that Jesus was certainly Church of England would tell me only that said theologians were 18th century.

You may imagine that last is a fanciful example, but it is not entirely imaginary. I have an edition of the apostolic fathers in which Archbishop Wake solemnly tells us that these show that the fathers followed an entirely Anglican approach to church order. If so, we must believe that the good Archbishop regularly ordained apostles and prophets, as per the Didache!

An example I can give is found in N. Holzberg, Lucian and the Germans, in The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays, eds A. C. Dionisotti et al, London, 1988, pp. 199–209. From memory this is as follows. The German attitude to Lucian changed in the late 19th century. From being treated as an amusing literary source of the second century, his work was considered unanimously derivative rubbish; and this view persisted until 1945. Holzberg demonstrated that this change was down to one academic paper, and that this paper in turn was verbally identical in passages with an article by Houston Stewart Chamberlain in a non-academic anti-semitic rag -- for Lucian was suspected of being Jewish -- published some months earlier. The origin of the consensus of scholars was thereby revealed as pure popular prejudice. No doubt it still goes on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

FathomFFI

I can appreciate being wary of appeals to authority, however, the qualifications of said authority should be recognized. Appeals to authority are mostly invalidated when the authority is not really an expert on the subject.

Yet, when you have an overwhelming group of authorities in agreement as to what the best conclusion is, then the ante goes up as far as the value is concerned because you are now dealing with what is known as collective intelligence.

perfectidius

Sorry if I lost how this talk started, but are you claiming that since a majority of New Testament scholars regard the gospels to be reliable and Jesus the true son of God, than they are an authority?

Remind me what you thought they were an authority on.

I would assume that the majority of book of mormon scholars would believe the text really was ancient, and that the majority of any particle group of Buddhists scholars would regard a given piece of his sayings as authentic.

Do not most of these scholars study in seminaries? Since when are their skeptical or atheistic seminaries?

Daniel

FathomFFI

No. Never said anything of the sort.

mens_sana

This statement, disguised as a question, depends on what "majority" and "reliable" mean. I don't like your implied "majority." My "majority" thinks the texts are fairly reliable as far as transmission is concerned and that "Jesus the true son of God" is a theological construct which, along with "miracle," "prophecy," "resurrection" and the like, have to be shelved while historians go about their work.


Seminaries are where many of the specialized study programs are located, though graduate programs in secular universities have become more and more influential. Many seminaries have programs that are more academically oriented than those leading to the ministry. Some seminaries would not accept vocal atheists, but such prominent institutions as Union (NYC) and those associated with BU, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, and Claremont would welcome civil skeptics. (Evangelicals do not have a lock on being obnoxious.) Perhaps your question could be asked in a more objective manner — after some consideration.

FathomFFI

Yep, it was a loaded question for sure. That's why I simply said "No." Whatever his beliefs are in regards to scholars are not shared by me.