Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 05-23-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

Is a knowledge of Greek a prerequisite?

not at all. It was actually written in German, but I have an English translation by Eugene Boring (great name huh). It's a tough read if you try to do it cover to cover, but it's a great reference book.

CX · 05-23-2002, 11:30 AM

Quote:

I said average christians. I have been a christian for 18 years.

And noone ever told you who Luke was supposed to be? Interesting. And you never noticed that Luke isn't listed among "the Twelve"? Perhaps the average Xian is even less astute than I thought.

Quote:

Eusebius fabricated that quotation again just like he lied about Testimonium Flavianum. He had an agenda and in his works the Demonstratio Evangelica, the Historia Ecclesiastica, and the Theophany his motive is clear: he fabricated a "historical" information to refute Jewish and pagan accusations against Jesus.
Textual examination and comparisons between Matthew and Mark have proved Mark could not have been written by Mark. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias' bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church Mark blunders about Judaism, Mark never acknowledges Peter's authority.

You're preaching to the choir boy-o. You asked for a reference on the tradition and I gave you one. I think you're just being contentious. Even if Eusebius' quote of Papias is spot on, there is no reason to think Papias was right. He is in general a somewhat unreliable source of information. That being said some of your argument against Markan authorship is pretty flimsy. There is no reason to think that if the tradition were true (which I strongly doubt) that Mark was a Roman interpreter for Peter in Rome and that he wrote after Peter's death he would necessarily know much about Judaism or Palestinian geography (which he clearly doesn't). The dubiousness of the Markan attribution for me is that the first mention of it is like a 4th or 5th hand account. Eusebius in the 3rd century quotes Papias writing in the 2nd century about some unknown Presbyter (perhaps the Presbyter John) also in the 2nd century about a an author from the 1st century who was writing down Peter's recollections some 35 years after the fact. Hardly a strong case for apostolic authority. That being said it is meaningless to say it couldn't ahve possibly been Mark without qualifying who we mean. Mark was an extremely common name. Certainly there could have been a Mark who was a prot�g� of Peter who lived in Rome.

Quote:

I submit that "huge" does not amount to complex, or intricate.
In fact, I think its a confused collection we are dealing with. Nothing complex, just disorganised.

Are you paying attention? The historical question of the development of the text is complex not the collection itself. I can't think of a more complicated historical question. Honestly I'm not sure why you are being so contrary.

Jayhawker Soule · 05-23-2002, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
The dubiousness of the Markan attribution for me is that the first mention of it is like a 4th or 5th hand account. Eusebius in the 3rd century quotes Papias writing in the 2nd century about some unknown Presbyter (perhaps the Presbyter John) also in the 2nd century about an author from the 1st century who was writing down Peter's recollections some 35 years after the fact. Hardly a strong case for apostolic authority.

But, at least it's not very complicated!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

{ Edited to note that I just ordered the damn book. Hope it's as good as Tov. }

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Vorkosigan · 05-23-2002, 07:25 PM

We believe the vast majority of scientists about evolution over a few mavoricks (and a lot of websites) who deny it. Should we not give the same credit to historians or do you think only scientists have the ability to be honest?

This is a commonly-misunderstood point about scholarship that Christians often adduce. We should accept the conclusions of NT scholars where they have relevant expertise. In other words, we should accept their translation, text criticism, paleographic data, and so forth. Just as we accept evolution because we accept the methodologies of modern science.

However, and here's the rub, when NT scholars make specific claims about the reliability of the stories about Jesus, they have no expertise.. NT scholars have not yet developed sound tools for picking out truth from fiction; nobody has. Stories are confirmed as history by the totality of evidence regarding the tales they tell, and there is absolutely nothing in history or archaeology that confirms even a single detail of Jesus' life as it has come down to us. Thus, any claim by any particular scholar about the veracity of the 40 or gospels is entirely the {educated} opinion of that author (just because it is opinion doesn't mean it isn't true).

Just look at any other collection of legends and stories, like Robin Hood, or Arthur or the Prince of Huai Nan. Arthur and Robin Hood seem to be composites of various legends. In the Prince of Huai-nan's case, he is a major figure of Taoist legend. According to the legend, he was raised up to heaven in the presence of (need it be written?) reliable witnesses (whose names vary with the telling). Fortunately we also possess a dynastic history that mentions him. In that history, he and his head got separated over a little spot of revolt against the throne. Note that except for the name, the two stories have nothing in common.

Thus, even where the gospels agree, there is no way to know that they are telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was executed by crucifixion under Pilate. Maybe he was crucified. Maybe he wasn't even crucified. Maybe he is a composite of several different individuals (I consider that the most likely), only one of whom got whacked by the local potentate, and later than were large numbers of additions from other legends and religious views. I rather doubt Jesus was whacked under Pilate and tend to buy Earl D's argument that Jesus originally was another mythical savior figure. In my personal view, that story was grafted onto a real legend about a crucified nationalist preacher vaguely remembered decades later, with additions from still other traditions. Can't prove it though, any more than Burton Mack can prove that Jesus was a cynic philosopher, or NT Wright can prove he was the Son of the Canaanite Sky God Ya. Until there is a web of evidence from other historical disciplines, no one will ever be able to prove anything about the veracity of the gospels.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 05-24-2002, 04:03 AM

Alexis,
I hyave just read the links you provided about reviews on MacDonalds book on Marks gospel and the homeric epics.
Actually, its incorrect and misleading of you to label them as positive and negative.
Both reviewers agree that MacDonalds book presents a compelling argument.
The reviewer you labebled "negative says:

Quote:

Not being a biblical scholar, I am reluctant to say much about the
relationship MacDonald envisions between the Gospel of Mark and the other
gospels....
*then more seriously*:
Parallels do not necessarily signal direct influence...
One can discern literally hundreds of close parallels between the
Iliad and, say, Clint Eastwood's hero's tale Unforgiven

The second argument about it being possible to
discern literally hundreds of close parallels between the Iliad and, say, Clint Eastwood's hero's tale Unforgiven, is not a counterargument because it supports what the author says:
That the Jesus was not a historical character: the story of Jesus is just like Clint Eastwoodd's hero's tale, Unforgiven.

Please provide negative reviews. Or admit you cant provide any.

CX

Quote:

The complexity of the development of the Xian text legacy relates not to the motives or acumen of the writers, but rather the number of texts, the number of redactors, our present historical distance from the period in question and the absence of strong manuscript evidence prior to the 4th century.

You find it difficult to keep track of a huge number of texts.
And you find our historical distance from the period in question to be a huge obstacle.
Missing manuscript evidence is also a problem.

I also find those three factors to make it difficult to unravel the truth about what happened.

But there is still a huge difference between difficult tasks and tasks that involve dealing with intricately complex issues.

Thats my contention.

Quote:

Can I presume that you are not working in the field of biblical criticism?

I am a computer programmer. But biblical criticism has caught my interest of late.

Quote:

If not then you must derive your conclusions from somewhere. Where might that be?

My conclusions are not borrowed from others unless I find them well supported. My information sources vary. From christian apologetics to secular scholars and online sources. I examine all, then I make my conclusions - which I am always willing to support.
My guiding principle is not whether someone has a Phd or not; its whether what they say has substance and support.

Quote:

Your own rejoinder implies that his conclusion was arrived at uncritically, which is unfair in my opinion. I can say that by and large I also accept scholarly concensus such as it is.

He implied he only does what his Professors approve of.
This is what he said:

Quote:

I have exams to pass and professors to please so maybe I am too averse to radical ideas and a bit conservative

I call that Absolute crap (this expression is derived from Absolute zero (-273K)).

Scholarly concensus is fine as a guide. But its really weak to expect someone to be swayed when you claim "scholarly concensus" when making an argument. If you have a position, you simply have to defend it. You need to tell us the reasons for your position NOT the position of scholars - frankly, I dont give a rats ass if people ass-kiss their professors in order to obtain their degrees: Just dont let us in on it: Its your business how you obtain what you want, but here, you say something, you provide reasons for doing so.

And I think thats fair, given that this is a philosophical forum.

Quote:

Nonetheless I have arrived at this conclusion on my own after careful and ongoing study including a study of text criticism, koine Greek and the Greek New Testament(using the NA27, though I am only at approximately a 3rd semester level currently). Nonetheless I remain at best a dilletante and so rely significantly on the work of real scholars in the field

Your candidness is appreciated.

Quote:

This is not an unthinking nor an uncritical position but acknowledges the considerable work that has been done. This is the way genuine progress is made in academic fields of inquiry. We SHOULD view radically divergent theories with skepticism because most of they are incorrect. This is as true in historical sciences as it is in physical science.

We cant base our responses to ideas on numbers. We examine the contents of ideas and deal with them as they are. People are always uncomfortable about change.
Galileos' theories were once "radical" and it turned out he was right about the earth being round.
Each idea must be examined for its merits, not popularity.
Even Einsteins theory of relativity was hotly resisted.

Quote:

Are we to accept Dr. Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" simply because it goes against the grain of scholarly concensus and is widely supported by uncritical sources on the internet?

Bedes irreducible complexity has been refuted very well. I never even knew it was Bedes.
Even if Bede placed 5,000,000 scholars who agree with his idea, it will remain a well-refuted idea.

Quote:

And noone ever told you who Luke was supposed to be? Interesting. And you never noticed that Luke isn't listed among "the Twelve"? Perhaps the average Xian is even less astute than I thought.

You would be incredulous. You are assuming people bother to find out. Its a very wrong assumption. I even asked someone who attended catechism classes: they believe Mark was a disciple.

Quote:

You asked for a reference on the tradition and I gave you one.

You provided a quotation of Eusebius, tell me honestly, out of 2 billion christians, how many do you think have even heard of Papias and Eusebius? Just take a guess.
These are names that only people studying Theology are aware of. People only know of Jerome, Augustine and around other five church fathers.

Its very misleading and inaccurate to call Eusebian quotes "christian tradition".

Quote:

That being said it is meaningless to say it couldn't ahve possibly been Mark without qualifying who we mean. Mark was an extremely common name. Certainly there could have been a Mark who was a prot�g� of Peter who lived in Rome.

This is prima facie a very good argument.

The main argument however is, the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark could not have been Peters translator and also could not have been close to the Jewish authority (for the aforementioned reasons).
This conflict arises from a falsified story because Eusebius wanted to create a historical basis (by putting words into a historians mouth) and at the same time make Marks gospel an eyewitness testimony because, going by Papias' quote, Mark translated what an eyewitness (Peter) told him.

Your argument relies on us accepting three things:
1. Peter had more than one "protege" called Mark.
2. The Mark that didnt know much about Jewish culture and did not recognise Peter is the one who wrote the Gospel.
3. The Markian Gospel was written by an unknown person who used the name Mark.

If (1) were true, it would have been pointed out in the "books"; both biblical and extrabiblical (like in the bible, the Simons are differentiated). You have to explain why Even Eusebius did not do that.
(2) would be a case of special pleading (3) You would have to explain who this person is and why his identity remained obscure..

Otherwise, your argument is invalid.

Quote:

The historical question of the development of the text is complex not the collection itself. I can't think of a more complicated historical question

You need to demonstrate how it is complex (repeating it ten times wont make it complex). So far, you have said the numbers of texts is large and the historical gap is huge.
Those two do not amount to complexity unless one is very simple-minded.

Vorkosigan

Quote:

However, and here's the rub, when NT scholars make specific claims about the reliability of the stories about Jesus, they have no expertise.. NT scholars have not yet developed sound tools for picking out truth from fiction; nobody has. Stories are confirmed as history by the totality of evidence regarding the tales they tell, and there is absolutely nothing in history or archaeology that confirms even a single detail of Jesus' life as it has come down to us. Thus, any claim by any particular scholar about the veracity of the 40 or gospels is entirely the {educated} opinion of that author (just because it is opinion doesn't mean it isn't true).

I owe you big time for that entire post you made.

Alexis Comnenus · 05-24-2002, 04:48 AM

As an arse kisser who spouts absolute crap, I'm dropping this thread. Something of interest might pop up elsewhere.

Vorkosigan · 05-24-2002, 05:25 AM

Intense One: calling people ass-kissers is entirely uncalled for. An apology is merited.

Why do you owe me big time? Feel free to steal it and use it elsewhere, as you wish, if that's what you mean.

Vorkosigan

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Dark Jedi · 05-24-2002, 06:34 AM

Intensity,

Personal attacks are not conducive to debate.
Please debate the issues, not the person.

CX - the reply wis in response to your implied attack on the person. Please watch the direction of your queries as well.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dark Jedi ]

Jayhawker Soule · 05-24-2002, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
Alexis,
I hyave just read the links you provided about reviews on MacDonalds book on Marks gospel and the homeric epics.

Actually, its incorrect and misleading of you to label them as positive and negative. Both reviewers agree that MacDonalds book presents a compelling argument.

It is neither incorrect nor misleading -- certainly not as potentially misleading as your selective quotes, e.g.:

Quote:

I think, however, that Professor MacDonald often practices analytical overkill. Persuasive arguments are set side-by-side and given equal emphasis with farfetched comparisons, the cumulative effect of which is to undermine the force of the book's major thesis.

< ... >

Not being a biblical scholar, I am reluctant to say much about the relationship MacDonald envisions between the Gospel of Mark and the other gospels. His claim for the temporal priority of Mark in relation to the other Synoptics (189) will likely prove uncontroversial. However, some biblical scholars may question the scenario according to which Matthew, Luke, and even John are imagined to have stripped from their own narratives various markers referring to the Odyssey, failing to understand their significance and function (216, n.46).

< ... >

Parallels do not necessarily signal direct influence, especially in the case of the Homeric poems, which have exercised a pervasive influence, both direct and indirect, over many aspects of Western culture, ancient and modern. One can discern literally hundreds of close parallels between the Iliad and, say, Clint Eastwood's hero's tale Unforgiven. Many elements of the Western owe much to the Iliad and its distinctive vision and critique of the nature of heroism, even where direct influence seems to be lacking. Far fewer parallels link Richard Wagner's The Flying Dutchman to the Odyssey, though the composer cited the Homeric poem as one of his major influences. Many readers, and not just the "philological fundamentalists" (7) are likely to come away with the impression that--in the words of Groucho Marx--there's less here than meets the eye.

While the author is honest enough to note that his area of expertise is classical literature, not biblical criticism, he is clearly critical of McDonald's thesis.

See also <a href="http://ibiblio.org/GMark/afr/HomerorNotHomer.htm" target="_blank">Homer or Not Homer? Mark 4:35-41 in Recent Study</a>

(and, perhaps, try to be less rude)

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Jayhawker Soule · 05-24-2002, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi:
< ... >
CX - the reply wis in response to your implied attack on the person. Please watch the direction of your queries as well.

For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with that assessment.

05-24-2002, 05:25 AM	#57
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Intense One: calling people ass-kissers is entirely uncalled for. An apology is merited. Why do you owe me big time? Feel free to steal it and use it elsewhere, as you wish, if that's what you mean. Vorkosigan [ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

05-24-2002, 06:34 AM	#58
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	Intensity, Personal attacks are not conducive to debate. Please debate the issues, not the person. CX - the reply wis in response to your implied attack on the person. Please watch the direction of your queries as well. [ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dark Jedi ]</p>

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

05-23-2002, 07:25 PM	#54
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	We believe the vast majority of scientists about evolution over a few mavoricks (and a lot of websites) who deny it. Should we not give the same credit to historians or do you think only scientists have the ability to be honest? This is a commonly-misunderstood point about scholarship that Christians often adduce. We should accept the conclusions of NT scholars where they have relevant expertise. In other words, we should accept their translation, text criticism, paleographic data, and so forth. Just as we accept evolution because we accept the methodologies of modern science. However, and here's the rub, when NT scholars make specific claims about the reliability of the stories about Jesus, they have no expertise.. NT scholars have not yet developed sound tools for picking out truth from fiction; nobody has. Stories are confirmed as history by the totality of evidence regarding the tales they tell, and there is absolutely nothing in history or archaeology that confirms even a single detail of Jesus' life as it has come down to us. Thus, any claim by any particular scholar about the veracity of the 40 or gospels is entirely the {educated} opinion of that author (just because it is opinion doesn't mean it isn't true). Just look at any other collection of legends and stories, like Robin Hood, or Arthur or the Prince of Huai Nan. Arthur and Robin Hood seem to be composites of various legends. In the Prince of Huai-nan's case, he is a major figure of Taoist legend. According to the legend, he was raised up to heaven in the presence of (need it be written?) reliable witnesses (whose names vary with the telling). Fortunately we also possess a dynastic history that mentions him. In that history, he and his head got separated over a little spot of revolt against the throne. Note that except for the name, the two stories have nothing in common. Thus, even where the gospels agree, there is no way to know that they are telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was executed by crucifixion under Pilate. Maybe he was crucified. Maybe he wasn't even crucified. Maybe he is a composite of several different individuals (I consider that the most likely), only one of whom got whacked by the local potentate, and later than were large numbers of additions from other legends and religious views. I rather doubt Jesus was whacked under Pilate and tend to buy Earl D's argument that Jesus originally was another mythical savior figure. In my personal view, that story was grafted onto a real legend about a crucified nationalist preacher vaguely remembered decades later, with additions from still other traditions. Can't prove it though, any more than Burton Mack can prove that Jesus was a cynic philosopher, or NT Wright can prove he was the Son of the Canaanite Sky God Ya. Until there is a web of evidence from other historical disciplines, no one will ever be able to prove anything about the veracity of the gospels. Vorkosigan

05-24-2002, 04:48 AM	#56
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	As an arse kisser who spouts absolute crap, I'm dropping this thread. Something of interest might pop up elsewhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.