Bede

Not written by me. I don’t have editorial control. An occupational hazard in any published writing!

Oh. Well here goes.

I specialise in the history of science and religion up until about 1700.

Sixteenth century mathematics and natural philosophy.

True, unless we have reason to believe that the other author was writing an epitome such as Florus wrote of Livy and Mark is believed by some to have done with Matthew.

This is clearly untrue. Vinnie’s work on the lack of gentile material in the gospels shows that early Christians did not freely create useful material (which is necessary for Price’s objection to work.).

Non sequitur. The point of the embarrassment criteria is precisely that the usage channel almost certainly did not find the material useful. To simply claim they did is not a methodology but an assertion.

As long as we note the word ‘methodological’ and accept that we sometimes cannot find ‘rational’ explanations and are willing to leave gaps (more relevant for history than science), this is fine. We must also avoid anachronism and always remember that to the ancients the supernatural was very real.

This is Doherty not Price speaking, I expect. Would work fine in principal except that the alleged parallels don’t exist or are flukes. The Lincoln/Kennedy assassination parallel is an example of this going wrong that we can all accept.

People working in and around universities. Yes, I belong to it. One needs to have a higher degree in the relevant subject, accept scholarly methods and publish academic works. That said, I do consider Doherty to be worth serious attention (unlike Freke and Gandy) even though he is dead wrong.

Price goes too far (even without Doherty’s editorialising) which is why his work is rejected by most HJ scholars. The criteria are better explained by JP Meier and also the editorial in the Jesus Seminar’s ‘Five Gospels’. My own work on HJ method is here. FWIW, this got top graded in my MA.

Well they aren’t. They seem very like business awareness training seminars.

My beliefs are irrelevant. Critique my work. I don't mention Freke and Gandy's religion - I point out their mistakes, omissions and inaccuracies. I note you didn't address a single point I made in my review.

Finally don’t take stuff so seriously. You made a mistake believing TJM due to your self confessed lack of knowledge in the field. Rather than getting all spiky, accept you got it wrong and move on to better things. Thinking TJM is rubbish does not make you a less faithful atheist (or whatever you are).

Yours

Bede

Bede’s Library – faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

Beware of the naked man that hands you his trouser.

Details below.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...49#post1675249

Toto

How does Price's objection to the criterion of dissimilarity require "freely created useful material"? It does appear that early Christians freely adapted what they found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And I would dispute that there is a lack of gentile material in the gospels.

We have considered the criterion of embarrassment here at length, in particular with regards to the baptism of Jesus by John. There is no evidence that Mark, the presumed earliest source, found the story embarrassing. The later gospels found some aspects embarrassing for their theological purpsoses, and made appropriate alterations, but still found some use for the story. No other field of history uses this "criterion of embarrassment" to separate fact from fiction in religious documents.

Magdlyn

Of course if you are telling me that 2 authors are not scholars, I would want to know how your credentials exceed theirs. It seems you hold a British MA, yet put down one of the authors (forget which one) for holding an inferior British MA, just like you!

Would that be the history of all world religions, or just Western? If western, only Christianity, or also pre-and-post-Temple Judaism and other Near Eastern religions? How deep is your exploration of "religion" while you also pursue philosophy, math and science?

Who is Vinnie and what is his work? Is he a professor at your university?What do you mean by "useful material?"

I will take these comments under consideration. I did expect, however, your own list of historical critical criteria in return though.

And you have published---where? On Tektonics only or elsewhere? What are your scholarly methods?

Spoken like a True Xtian TM.

Doherty--dead wrong. Price--goes too far. F&G, Tweeledeedee. Assertions without evidence.

Cutting edge research--scary!

By JP Meier where?

As far as your rec of the JS 5 Gospels, thank you for that. All I am asking for is something, anything, specific.

My own work on HJ method is here. FWIW, this got top graded in my MA.[/quote]

According to your own putdown of British universities you attend, perhaps not worth much?

Just laying some groundwork first, old boy. Your credentials, your historical-critical criteria. I still do not know your criteria (unless you fully accept Meier and the J Seminar's) or where you have published to show your place in the academic guild. And if you put no value in your degree from your institution of higher learning, should I?

Others here have complained F&G's gnostic beliefs prevent their being objective. I wonder if your orthodox Xtian beliefs cloud yours. Or does it only go one way?

I am skeptical yet open-minded. Believing without evidence is not my style. I just want to know what is wrong with the book and what is right, beyond darkly muttered vague grumbles about bloopers. Does this make me "too serious?"

And, in your opinion, better things would be...? Your article on Tektonics, to be swallowed whole and without "spiky" comments?

I still do not think TJM is total rubbish. Perhaps overly speculative. If it is on a level with The Chariots of Gods?, I will need evidence. So far, I have little coming from you. Speculation and uncertainty seems to come with the territory, as you wrote here:

But, thanks for making a start.

Magdlyn

Jacob, thank you so very much! My computer time is up for now. I will comment later.

Bede

Madlyn,

Looking over your post, I can't see much point in continuing this conversation. I really don't think that we can communicate. I am disappointed you found Robin Lane Fox's brilliant, witty and colourful 'Pagans and Christians' too dry to finsh, but that suggests we probably aren't on the same wave length.

Enjoy your debate with 'Don.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Magdlyn

2 words. Cop out.