TedM

TedH, in order to keep the thread on topic, I'm starting a new thread to respond to your claim of 3 items that Carrier found Muller to be wrong about with regard to positive evidence for Doherty's thesis. I wrote to Muller this morning and he has responded to every item you posted. If readers are interested, go to a new thread called Reply to 3 of Carrier's claims against Muller regarding Doherty's thesis. I'll put it up tomorrow.

ted

Ted Hoffman

TedM, look, you are way over your head here. I see no point in you continuing in this excercise until some rules are laid down. It is not enough to show your ignorance in spectacular fashion then apologize profusely for your ill-conceived notions.
In the heat of the moment, you are too overwhelmed to distinguish good arguments from poor arguments. You are content to simply respond to critics without earnestly evaluating what you are being told. You just want to keep your head above the water and you can not examine the arguments that are actually drowning you; the arguments you are clambering on top of in order to get some air. Maybe after you have responded to every critic, irrespective of how vacuous and reckless your responses are, you will sit back and go through what you were being told.
But as things stand right now, it is not fair to you to keep advancing arguments you can hardly understand, and witness the evolving circus as you waffle in a ham-fisted fashion through the rebuttals (you cant even write "Buttrick" correctly!): it is a mockery to the effort we have put towards understanding the issues at hand, it makes you look ridiculous and has no redeeming value whatsoever. You neither have the time, the resources and the discipline you would need to evaluate the arguments fairly. I have seen this both here and at JM.

When I cite the The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament about the idea of "superimposed spheres" and the ancient People's concept of history you write:
You have no respect for scholarship. You have no respect for people who know more than you (like Buttrick). My citation of TDNT was meant to indicate to you that the ideas I present to you are not my own "theorizing". But that is what you relegate them to: everything has the same weight for you. You dont even seem to know why people cite authoritative sources. It does not matter to you at all. You just want to pit your random, unrefined thoughts against arguments made by scholars and historians in the field.

The egg on your face with respect to Philo is an embarrasment to this forum, not just you: it shows that the forum has reckless and irresponsible people and it makes us look bad: our image as the definitive forum on Biblical Criticism is getting rapidly depleted.
In cognizance of the above, you should agree with the following before we proceed:

a) As far as direct sources are concerned, you will only comment on what you know and have checked.

b) Since you are an amateur, when an authoritative source is cited, and you are incapable of providing an authoritative source that is disagreeing with that source, you will defer your amateur opinions to that authoritative source.

c) If you violate (a) in this thread, you deregister yourself from infidels.

I agree to abide with these conditions and I am willing to address all your arguments if you agree to these three conditions. Do we have a deal?

Rick Sumner

[nitpick]I believe you (or perhaps Weeden, or, for that matter, perhaps Spong) are erroneously attributing an argument to Spong that was first presented by Raymond Brown in the parallel of Judas to Judah (Brown, of course, did not follow it through to the conclusion that it was not historical). Unfortunately, my copy of Brown is in a box somewhere around here, I'll dig it out later and get the specific reference if requested.[/nitpick]

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

Doherty, on his site, wrote “For Philo, this emanation, this Logos, was not a separate divine being". I inferred from this that Philo had no "heavenly man". It was a careless mistake, and I've addressed it. I said I would be a lot more careful, and I will.


It depends on whether that source is stating a fact as known, as opposed to an opinion. It also depends on how clear it is to me that a particular source IS authoritative. I'll try to be more careful, but won't hold back if I think there are grounds for disagreement, ESPECIALLY if I know other authoritative sources disagree with a particular cited source--WHICH IS the case regarding the passage we are debating.


Are you a moderator, TedH? Are you speaking for infidels.org? Do you set the rules here? If not, I see no reason to go there.


I'd like to respond to a few things you wrote:

About my response:
You wrote: You seem to have misunderstood. Your charge that I don't respect scholarship is not correct, and appears to be based on a misunderstanding of how I responded to your TDNT quote. I wasn't denying the ideas you presented in TDNT. I was responding to their limitations as applied to the specific issue at hand: the timing of the crucifixion. I think you would agree that the TDNT does NOT say that things like crucifixion were believed to have happened in the dual world. Because of that, I had in mind your comments that came right after you quoted this passage, when I wrote the above. Your comments were this:

That is a THEORY that you accept which goes beyond the evidence. The value of the TDNT reference therefore is limited for our purposes because if it can't support the ACT of the crucifixion, it surely can't support it's TIMING, which is one of the very issues we are debating.


I don't care for your tone toward me in your post, TedH. You seem to derive a bit too much pleasure in attacking me and others you disagree with... You have also done this most recently in your exchanges with Don. Have you considered that this TOO may reflect badly on the image of the site?

I'd prefer to stick with the arguments at hand at this point. Other than my slip-up regarding Philo's heavenly man, I think I have addressed your arguments appropriately, including my comments regarding Buttrick's argument.

ted

Ted Hoffman

Okay TedM. We'll have it your way.

Vorkosigan

I don't know who was first. Weeden's post is here, the relevant section:

WEEDEN: I submit that Mark and Mark alone created the narrative figure of a betrayer and named him Judas. In creating Judas, Mark modeled him after Ahithophel, the confidant of David, who betrayed David by joining the rebellion against him. I have developed extensive essays on how Mark created the whole Gethsemane scene of the betrayal using material from the Davidic saga in II Sam. 15-17 and 20:4-10, essays which appeared on Kata Markon ("Judas and Jesus" [2/22], "Re: Judas and Jesus' [3/14], "Judas' Kiss and Methodology" [3/27], "Judas' Kiss: Methodology and Misplaced Concreteness" [4/9]). See also the impressive case Spong makes for Judas being a Christian invention (Liberating ,257-276). Spong presented his case to the Jesus Seminar and the Seminar concurred with him that Judas is a fictive invention (Acts of Jesus, 136f., 138). Spong, in his paper presented to the Seminar, argued that Mark created the betrayer-figure Judas. But he does not identify Mark as the "culprit" in his book.

There's more in the original posting to Kata Markon

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW, I have Brown -- I assume you mean DotM? I'll check tonight.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

I'll save you the grief, since the first instance is in the "preamble" so to speak (the section is entitled "Special Matthean Passion Material"), which will make it decidedly tougher to find than searching verses for Judas and checking the commentary. It's always stuck out in my mind as a decidedly profound observation, so it was easy enough to track down once I had the book out.

In the quote above, it might bear noting that Weeden seems to be stating that Spong is responsible for the interpretation of the argument as pointing to Judas as fiction, rather than for the initial note of the parallel. If that is the case, then Spong could certainly be responsible, as that is certainly not the conclusion Brown draws.

And again, in footnote 51, p 655

And on p. 658, discussing the thirty silver
Further discussion of Jesus as a Joseph figure is found on p.301, p.517 etc.. It could be suggested that Jesus was modelled on Joseph, much in the way you, Vork, suggest he's modelled on Elijah/Elisha (though Brown does have misgivings of that interpretation).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

This is a response to TedH's review of #1, Godly Attributes, Knowledge

You apparantly don't understand what Doherty is trying to do in his Top 20. He writes in his introduction: "I have tried to cover all the principal aspects of the Gospel story,". And for this silence he writes: Doherty's own comments make clear that he is demonstrating the lack of mention of the Jesus of the Gospels, not "any HJ". Since the Gospel Jesus was God's revelation, he IS a CANDIDATE for mention at ANY time God's revelations to man are mentioned. However, it is the CONTEXT of the passage that determines how high an expectation should be. That's what I am looking at here.

In the case of the first 9 chapters of Romans there is a DEFINITE SEQUENCE of God's revelation to man. Paul is laying out a CHRONOLOGY of God's revelations. First, to ALL men early in creation, then to Jews, then Gentiles. The Gospel Jesus doesn't qualify as a revelation early in creation.

I pointed out that Doherty LEFT OUT the most critical part of the passage he quoted, which shows us that Paul is referring to God's revelation to men long ago in history. Since you didn't comment my observation of this omission (which looks deliberate) I cannot know if you understood the point I was making or not. Again, from my review:


The passage in context doesn't support an expectation of mention of a revelation by God that only recently occurred because it isn't talking about a recent time at all. It is clearly talking about a prior time in history--before God's revelation to Jews and the coming of Christ. This is borne out by references to Christ in the chapters that follow.

Until we have an agreement as to what Doherty is talking about and as to what Paul is talking about, I see no point in responding to the rest of your post.

ted

TedM

Having addressed TedH's comments regarding my review of Silence #1, I'll now turn my attention to addressing Vorkosigan's comments regarding #13, Judas the Betrayer. Michael, for now I’ll only be responding to your following comments regarding the context of Hebrews:



First, I do agree that the passage is using the father-son relationship as an analogy to the reader’s own relationship to God as that of sons, that they might be more receptive to their suffering as a form of helpful discipline. As is pointed out, the thought does seem Pauline: The believers became “sons of God� after they were baptized, and had faith in the resurrection of Christ. I think the word you have chosen of “disciples� can be misleading as it leads one to consider the 12 disciples, and Judas in particular as part of that group even prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that in this author’s mind those 12 disciples would not have been “sons� at that time. A more appropriate word might be “believers�.

If this were the only context of importance, a perfect example of a “son� who had caused trouble would have been someone who had once been baptized after having professed faith in the resurrection of Christ, and who had subsequently stirred up trouble of others who had done the same. Judas would not fit that criteria because his actions occurred before the crucifixion. As far as we know, he wasn’t even a “believer� In Gmark we see that the disciples were portrayed as having hardened hearts (6:52), unable to understand his teachings (7:18, 8:21, 9:32) and even fearful when they approached Jerusalem (10:32). Judas cannot be said to fit a criteria of a “believer gone bad�. Neither can Esau. So as far as applying the context of discipline for the “sons of God� as “believers� neither Judas or Esau seem to fit.


Both do however fit broader criteria of a “chosen� one gone bad. Judas was chosen as a disciple. Esau was chosen as the firstborn of Isaac. And, both were more concerned with worldly issues, and were instigators of trouble. So, I also agree that there are similarities, which you pointed out that others had recognized. If the writer had Esau in mind, one might think that he could also have had Judas in mind.


However, my review mentioned three criteria which I think tip the scales in favor of mentioning Esau instead of Judas. The first you responded to in part above, and the other two you did not respond to at all:

First, I indicated that the above passage refers to the need for discipline from God, as is also reflected by our earthly fathers. The point is to encourage the readers to withstand trials and sufferings by seeing them as being a form of fatherly discipline from God. Esau is not mentioned as an example of a person sent to discipline others. He is mentioned as a troublemaker for others. However, there are indications that the issue of the father-son relationship was still in the author’s mind: “that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected..� Inheritance was from his father Isaac, and the rejection (which can be seen as a type of discipline) was also from his father. On a larger scale he was being disciplined by God for being worldly and not respecting his having been “chosen�. So, both God and his earthly father disciplined him, although in his case it was too late. We know nothing of Judas’ earthly father, and we have no record of God disciplining Judas--rather Judas took his own life on his own accord. I submit that the father-son/God-son error-discipline relationships spoken about in verses 5-11 may have influenced his choice of Esau as evidenced by the powerful father-son role in his story of wrongdoing.


Second, I had written:This seems to me to reflect the primary concern of the author. He is trying to protect the believers from losing their faith. Did Judas cause the many “chosen sons of God� to lose their faith and as a result their chosen status? No. While the disciples did scatter upon Jesus’ arrest, they were back together again within days. I don’t see any long-term ill affects on believers from Judas’ actions. In Esau’s case, however, the effects were on ALL of his descendants, who had been the rightful heirs to God’s promise. THEY would have been the chosen nation had Esau not been worldly! The consequences of Esau’s wrongdoing to the chosen group was huge--they completely lost their chosen status! Instead of receiving the honor bestowed on the Jews, they became the Edomites, who were long-despised by the Jews, not a part of God’s chosen people. From this perspective, Esau is a much better example than Judas of how a worldly attitude ended up defiling (completely!) the chosen people of God.


Third, I pointed out that Esau had just been mentioned in the last chapter, and as such may have still been fresh in the author’s mind. Consider further: The audience is believed to have been Jewish Christians who were in danger of abandoning their faith and lapsing back into Judaism. In every Chapter the author appeals to the authority of the Jewish scriptures (OT) to make his case for Christianity. He repeatedly appeals to the basics of the Jewish faith: He references lessons to be learned and applied to Christianity from Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Israelites in Canaan, and the priest Melchizedek mentioned by David. He spends several chapters discussing the old Jewish covenant of sacrifice compared with Christ’s sacrifice. The entire preceding chapter (11) discusses the faith of the fathers--Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. He mentions others named in the scriptures--Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. Just after the mention of Esau he talks of the Israelis under Moses. Where do we see mention of anyone not named in scripture (other than Christ himself) or anyone within even the last 500 years prior from whom lessons could be learned? Or about recent men of great faith, known in the community, or of the many examples he could have given of people in recent history that could be blamed for the woes of the Jewish nation? It seems to me that the writer was appealing to some of the most powerful stories of the faith--ones that had been told and retold for centuries. Esau’s wrongdoings weren’t minor. They likely were taught to the authors audience from the time they were children. Not only was Esau probably still fresh in the author’s mind from having just mentioned him in the prior chapter, he was someone whose story directly spoke to the deeply embedded Jewish roots of the people to whom he was writing. From all appearances the author deliberately appealed to long-known Jewish teachings in writing an apology for Christianity. It was in this context that Esau is mentioned. With this kind of approach the mention of Judas would simply have been out of place. Not only was the example of Esau likely still fresh in the author’s mind from the prior chapter, it was also much more appropriate to the author’s consistent apologetic approach which depended on the major lessons of the faith as found in the centuries-old Jewish scriptures.


You concluded with the following:

Judas, while a worldly character who caused trouble, was probably never a “son� of God in the author’s mind, he wasn’t an example of one who had been disciplined by either an earthly father or God himself, his actions didn’t defile the status of the many who were rightful heirs to be God’s chosen, and he wasn’t a prominent figure in Jewish teachings from whom lessons of faith and disobedience had been learned and would thus serve as a useful example for a group of Jewish Christians whose new faith was being shaken. While I agree that there are some similarities between Judas and Esau, Esau was a more logical choice for the author of Hebrews than Judas, given the context of the passage and of the book as a whole.

ted