Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 07-19-2011, 03:36 PM

Let me add to my previous post that I find the notion of labeling the women-led discovery of the tomb as 'embarrassing' to be wholly ridiculous.

At the time of writing there appears to have been no embarrassment about it; and our sources indicate that women enjoyed reasonable equality and respect in the early Christian communities.

What I find the most astonishing about the discovery of the tomb is that it is supposedly related by the very same people who swore they saw Jesus placed in it a few days prior. This is not the greatest embarrassment in the world, but if we had to rank embarrassments, I think this would list up much higher than the sex of the discoverers.

Jon

TedM · 07-19-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

As evidence of hostility to women as witnesses see Josephus antiquities book 4

Quote:

But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered

When the story of the arrest tells us that all his disciples "deserted him and fled" (Mk 14:50), the narrative has sufficiently justified the rhetorical use of the women.

ridiculous. If the women's testimony is seen as not credible, it is seen as not credible. The creed, once again, shows what early Christianity saw as credible. It excluded the testimony of women. Case closed.

Toto · 07-19-2011, 04:15 PM

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.

aa5874 · 07-19-2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..I know I"m speaking tongue in cheek on this issue, but really, you cannot KNOW history. All you can do is BELIEVE it on the basis of evidence that YOU SUBJECTIVELY VALUE AS TRUSTWORTHY....

Why do you want to BELIEVE stories that may NOT be history at all? Can't you see that you have placed yourself in a blatant contradiction, or in an illogical position?

You are admitting that you do not know if the Jesus stories are history and also admitting that if they are history you would not be certain yet you want to BELIEVE parts and reject others as history.

What happens if the Jesus stories were NOT EVER history?

Using embarrasment as a criteria to resolve ambiguity is extremely irrational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Same could be said for science too. ALL that our brains process and conclude is filtered through our brains...

Please find out the difference between "subjective and "objective". In Science actual RELIABLE data is used to reconstruct history.

You seem to think history only involves myth fables about Jesus.

spin · 07-19-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When the story of the arrest tells us that all his disciples "deserted him and fled" (Mk 14:50), the narrative has sufficiently justified the rhetorical use of the women.

ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If the women's testimony is seen as not credible, it is seen as not credible.

There is no reason to believe that it was not credible in a diaspora context where all the gospels were written. You do clutch at straws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The creed, once again, shows what early Christianity saw as credible.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It excluded the testimony of women. Case closed.

Haste is not a virtue.

TedM · 07-19-2011, 05:58 PM

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.

spin · 07-19-2011, 06:07 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.

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

It's not a creed. In fact it's an interpolation, which I have been through here several times. The appearances nullify the need for the logic which follows in 1 Cor 15:12ff. If there had been appearances he wouldn't have needed to argue as he does, finishing (v.19), "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." If he really had report of Jesus having been resurrected, it would have been obvious that resurrection was possible; he would have used it and avoided a much weaker argument.

TedM · 07-19-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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.

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

It's not a creed. In fact it's an interpolation, which I have been through here several times. The appearances nullify the need for the logic which follows in 1 Cor 15:12ff. If there had been appearances he wouldn't have needed to argue as he does, finishing (v.19), "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." If he really had report of Jesus having been resurrected, it would have been obvious that resurrection was possible; he would have used it and avoided a much weaker argument.

That's a different issue, and not relevant to the one at hand. Obviously the creed or whatever you want to call it came before widespread acceptance of Mark, so I think my point is not affected even if your theory is right.

spin · 07-19-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's not a creed. In fact it's an interpolation, which I have been through here several times. The appearances nullify the need for the logic which follows in 1 Cor 15:12ff. If there had been appearances he wouldn't have needed to argue as he does, finishing (v.19), "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." If he really had report of Jesus having been resurrected, it would have been obvious that resurrection was possible; he would have used it and avoided a much weaker argument.

That's a different issue, and not relevant to the one at hand. Obviously the creed or whatever you want to call it came before widespread acceptance of Mark,

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

so I think my point is not affected even if your theory is right.

TedM · 07-19-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That's a different issue, and not relevant to the one at hand. Obviously the creed or whatever you want to call it came before widespread acceptance of Mark,

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

Why it is not relevant: It's still a passage that excluded the women
Why it maybe came earlier: It refers to the appearances to the twelve--pre Judas.

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

07-19-2011, 03:36 PM	#51
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	Let me add to my previous post that I find the notion of labeling the women-led discovery of the tomb as 'embarrassing' to be wholly ridiculous. At the time of writing there appears to have been no embarrassment about it; and our sources indicate that women enjoyed reasonable equality and respect in the early Christian communities. What I find the most astonishing about the discovery of the tomb is that it is supposedly related by the very same people who swore they saw Jesus placed in it a few days prior. This is not the greatest embarrassment in the world, but if we had to rank embarrassments, I think this would list up much higher than the sex of the discoverers. Jon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.