FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-17-2003, 08:46 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
GDon: On the envy: Mark 11:18 "And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching." He was popular with the people, and embarrassing the Pharisees with His intelligent answers and miracles. I can't see why envy wouldn't be a reasonable emotion. Can you?

"Fear" is not the same as "envy". "Envy" implies that the object of your envy has something you want, usually some material thing. It fits Philo's story, it doesn't fit the gospels.
Which is why I highlighted the words "all the people were astonished" and not "they feared him".

In the link you provide, they say "envy () = distress at another's success". Jesus astonished the people, and rode into Jerusalem in triumph, with people shouting "Hosanna!". Surely a reasonable cause for envy?

Quote:
GDon: On Judas's quick confessing: I have no idea why that is a problem. It doesn't stick out at all. Can you tell me how it does?

Judas is obviously a made up character, there to get the plot along. He was supposedly chosen by the Lord Himself to be part of the inner circle, and trusted with the treasury. Then he suddenly goes bad and sells out Jesus for a paltry sum of money, but almost immediately repents and kills himself. There is nothing about this that makes any sense if it were real history.
"Judas is obviously a made up character"? "Doesn't make sense if it were real history"??? Well, I'm convinced!

C'mon, you'll need to do better than that. All the characters in the Gospels are fairly sketchy. On that basis, you may as well say *all* of them are made up. John actually mentions Judas's father - let me guess, he either got it as a parallel from another source, or he was winging it.

One of the parallels are that Judas (like Flaccus) was the treasurer. So why don't any of the Synoptics say that Judas was the treasurer?

Quote:
GDon: I believe that 7 are regarded as reliable. In one, 1 Cor, he mentions crucifixion and the Last Supper.

But not the character of Judas, the strange bifurcated trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, with Herod looking in, etc.

I'll wait for your more detailed responses to continue.
OK. The two criteria in contention are: Density and Interpretability.

"Interpretability" refers to points in the source document that can be used to explain problems in the other document. You've mentioned the "envy" scenario and the "strange Judas" scenario. Are there any others in this category?

For Density:
(1) some refer to historical parallels that would, in fact, be expected to exist! ("Crucifixion on a holiday")
(2) some are weak ("An unfair trial with false testimony", "the Garden Scene")
(3) some are *very* weak ("The Salvation", "Parallels between Judas and Flaccus")

The only one I really find interesting is the Mockery. But, Jesus's story occurred before Flaccus's, so it could be put down to:
(1) the people of Alexandria did it because they had heard about it,
(2) the parallel is a not unexpected result of a similar mindset.

(Ed) This is what Leidner's list reminds me of: Archaya's list of "Jesus vs the sun" similarities:
Quote:
The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

* The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
* In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
* The sun is the "Light of the World."
* The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
* The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
* The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.71
* The sun "walks on water."
* The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
* The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
* The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
* The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
I think you'll agree, these are pretty contrived. But most of Leidner's aren't much better, IMHO. Flaccus is a treasurer, Judas carried the purse - therefore the Gospels writers used Flaccus as Judas for that part! Flaccus worries about death, Jesus worries about death - therefore the Gospel writers must have used Flaccus as Jesus for that part! Flaccus crucified the Jews, the Romans/Jews crucified Jesus - therefore the Gospel writers must have used the Jews as Jesus, and Flaccus as Pilate for that part!

If there were any *significant* parallel, that would be a different story. Otherwise, it's just a word game. Toto, do you believe that *all* the parallels must indicate borrowing on each of the points? How would you tell the difference?

I don't think there's much point continuing in this debate any further, unless some real evidence can be shown, and not just comparison between bulletin points.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 11:35 AM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

GDon: giving up so soon? You're no fun. You could at least try to argue that the basic story was decked out with a few details from Philo.

I have not read Acharya S, but surely you can see the difference. Acharya S is trying to explain the entire phenomenon of Christianity based on earlier religious parallels, something that glosses over a lot of details. Leidner has spent a lifetime reading religious texts, and is merely trying to explain part of the written texts of Christianity, based on other available texts that the unknown authors could have read and probably did read.

Let me ask you this: Do you accept that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet? That the movie O Brother Where Art Thou was based on the Odyssey? The Life of Brian based on the gospels?

Why is Leidner's theory so upsetting to you that you can only mock it with faux comparisons to people you consider nutcases?

You :
Quote:
All the characters in the Gospels are fairly sketchy. On that basis, you may as well say *all* of them are made up.
I do assume that, unless there is other evidence of their existence.

Quote:
John actually mentions Judas's father - let me guess, he either got it as a parallel from another source, or he was winging it.
There is absolutely no way to know who Simon of Iscariot (or Karioth, a city in Judah) could have been.

From here

Quote:
Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Iscariot beyond the bare facts of his call to the Apostolate, his treachery, and his death. His birthplace, as we have seen, is indicated in his name Iscariot, and it may be remarked that his origin separates him from the other Apostles, who were all Galileans. For Kerioth is a city of Judah. It has been suggested that this fact may have had some influence on his career by causing want of sympathy with his brethren in the Apostolate.
Other commentators assume that Iscariot is a garbled version of Sicarii, the thuggish assassins who were part of the landscape at the time.

Meier seems to find Judas so much an anomaly that he has to reach for the "criterion of embarrassment" to say anything about him.

Quote:
"Interpretability" refers to points in the source document that can be used to explain problems in the other document. You've mentioned the "envy" scenario and the "strange Judas" scenario. Are there any others in this category?
I would regard the mockery scene as particularly difficult to explain without the Philo reference (see below), also the "crucifixion at the third hour" in Mark, which is so improbable the other gospels feel the need to rewrite it. I think most of the other elements make more sense when viewed as a rewrite of Philo than as legends remembered.

For instance, a delegation of armed men is sent to arrest Jesus at night, and requires a guide, Judas, to point out this well known person. Some commentators try to explain this by saying that Jesus was so popular that this was the only way to avoid a riot, implying that Jesus had a mass following in Jerusalem, but then the next day the "mob" is howling for Jesus' death, much as the mob in Philo's account demanded the death of the Jews in Alexandria. There is no explanation for this sudden shift in public opinion, unless you realize that bits and pieces of this story have been lifted out of context from Philo.

Quote:
For Density:
(1) some refer to historical parallels that would, in fact, be expected to exist! ("Crucifixion on a holiday")
(2) some are weak ("An unfair trial with false testimony", "the Garden Scene")
(3) some are *very* weak ("The Salvation", "Parallels between Judas and Flaccus")
On the contrary, crucifixion on a holiday was an anomaly, as Philo notes. Perhaps many trials were alleged to be unfair and involved false testimony, but the details of the garden scene soliloquy (which seems made for a stage in both Philo and the gospels) look like a fit.

I don't know that the gospel writers borrowed the Salvation from Philo. It may just be that they recognized a similar theme, which gave them a motive to reshape the other details of Philo's narrative.

I think that the density of parallels between Judas and Flaccus are too close for your comfort: handling funds, coming from another place, betraying Jesus/the Alexandrian Jews, repenting on stage, buying a small plot of land, dying with a lot of blood.

Quote:
The only one I really find interesting is the Mockery. But, Jesus's story occurred before Flaccus's, so it could be put down to:
(1) the people of Alexandria did it because they had heard about it,
(2) the parallel is a not unexpected result of a similar mindset.
Not quite. The role of the Mockery in Alexandria was completely different. The mob there picked a lunatic and dressed him up as the King, to mock the visiting Jewish King - they were not staging a mockery of the lunatic himself. If the Alexandrians had tried to replicate Jesus' mockery scene, they would have mocked the Jewish leaders being crucified - but given everything else that happened, they didn't bother.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 02:18 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Question

Quote:
The historical value of Paul's letters is questionable.
Why?

Quote:
There has been ample opportunity to interpolate and forge them
So what?

You can't just claim that they're unreliable because interpolation could have taken place. The burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it has.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 06:10 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
GDon: giving up so soon? You're no fun.
Actually, it's more that I realise I should leave the arguments to more knowledgeable people. I'm really just a layman. While I'm more than happy to point out any flaws in Leidner's idea, I'm not really experienced enough to say that it can be ruled out.
Quote:
Let me ask you this: Do you accept that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet? That the movie O Brother Where Art Thou was based on the Odyssey? The Life of Brian based on the gospels?
Sure, but we can see that their general themes and characters are similar. Neither of which exists, even superficially, between Philo and the Gospel. For example, Flaccus is Jesus, Judas and Pilate in Philo, depending on whatever parallel Leidner wants to push. Their roles are very different. Possible? Yes. Convincing? No.

Quote:
Why is Leidner's theory so upsetting to you that you can only mock it with faux comparisons to people you consider nutcases?
Because Leidner seems to be using the same methodology as the nutcases.

Quote:
I would regard the mockery scene as particularly difficult to explain without the Philo reference (see below)
Unless they got the idea from hearing about a historical incident.

Quote:
also the "crucifixion at the third hour" in Mark, which is so improbable the other gospels feel the need to rewrite it.
Except that Philo doesn't talk about crucifixion at the third hour...

Quote:
For instance, a delegation of armed men is sent to arrest Jesus at night, and requires a guide, Judas, to point out this well known person.
Do you mean they should have recognised Jesus from his photo, or from the TV? Or from a description? "Man, with beard, in sandals and white robe."

Quote:
I think that the density of parallels between Judas and Flaccus are too close for your comfort: handling funds, coming from another place, betraying Jesus/the Alexandrian Jews, repenting on stage, buying a small plot of land, dying with a lot of blood.
Just "bulletin point" similarities, and mostly contrived, IMHO. But I admit I can't rule out that someone more knowledgeable than myself may recognise that Leidner has a legitimate case.

Quote:
Not quite. The role of the Mockery in Alexandria was completely different. The mob there picked a lunatic and dressed him up as the King, to mock the visiting Jewish King - they were not staging a mockery of the lunatic himself. If the Alexandrians had tried to replicate Jesus' mockery scene, they would have mocked the Jewish leaders being crucified - but given everything else that happened, they didn't bother.
That's quite ironic, Toto. So there couldn't have been copying because "the role was completely different"? Hmmm...

Still, all in all, an interesting thread, Toto. Thank you! I'll look forward to other's comments.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 08:51 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Thumbs up

Quote:
Neither of which exists, even superficially, between Philo and the Gospel. For example, Flaccus is Jesus, Judas and Pilate in Philo, depending on whatever parallel Leidner wants to push. Their roles are very different. Possible? Yes. Convincing? No.

[...]

Just "bulletin point" similarities, and mostly contrived, IMHO.
Exactly. This is demonstrable proof of an purely subjective argument. Leidner's methodology is arbitrary, his exegesis inconsistent, his goalposts constantly on the move.

He's simply making it up as he goes along.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:20 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion
. . .

You can't just claim that they're unreliable because interpolation could have taken place. The burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it has.
Since we have no copies of Paul's letters or even any mention of them before the mid-2nd century, there is no way anything can be proven. But given that forgery of Christian documents in general and Paul's letters in particular was rampant, given that most scholars find some interpolation in other letters, the burden of proof should be on the one claiming Paul's letters are authentic and can be dated to the mid 1st c.

Consider one of Leidner's reasons for dating Paul's letters (and Paul) to past 70 CE: in Gal 4:25-26, Paul says:

Quote:
25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Does this sound like the Jerusalem of 50 CE or the Jerusalem of post 70 CE? The description tracks the apocryphal 4 Ezra, (2 Esdras) which speaks of "Zion, the mother of us all," which is currently in slavery, but shines as a heavenly city. (see 9:43 - 10:49)
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:30 AM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion
Exactly. This is demonstrable proof of an purely subjective argument. Leidner's methodology is arbitrary, his exegesis inconsistent, his goalposts constantly on the move.

I find most Biblical exegesis to be arbitrary, motivated only by trying to prove the particular theological point of view of the exegete, or to make some kind of sense out of the wild inconsistancies and improbabilities in Holy Scripture.

Leidner is using only the normal methods of literary analysis, of trying to provide a coherent explanation of the text in front of him.

It's up to you to decide what makes the most sense. I have never seen a Biblical exegete make better sense of the Passion Narrative than Leidner, with fewer ad hoc assumptions.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:42 AM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Actually, it's more that I realise I should leave the arguments to more knowledgeable people. I'm really just a layman. While I'm more than happy to point out any flaws in Leidner's idea, I'm not really experienced enough to say that it can be ruled out.
Sure

Quote:
Sure, but we can see that their general themes and characters are similar. Neither of which exists, even superficially, between Philo and the Gospel. For example, Flaccus is Jesus, Judas and Pilate in Philo, depending on whatever parallel Leidner wants to push. Their roles are very different. Possible? Yes. Convincing? No.
You don't see the similarity between an unfair attack on a Jewish community by a traitor, followed by divine justice?

Quote:

Because Leidner seems to be using the same methodology as the nutcases.
We've already dealt with this. Besides, all nutcases claim to be using scientific methodology.

Quote:

Unless they got the idea from hearing about a historical incident.
I've already answered this.

Quote:
Except that Philo doesn't talk about crucifixion at the third hour...
But he does mention the third hour. And Mark mentions the third hour in a context where it makes no sense. Where did Mark get this improbable time. that Matthew and Luke and John felt so free to revise to something more credible?

Quote:
Do you mean they should have recognised Jesus from his photo, or from the TV? Or from a description? "Man, with beard, in sandals and white robe."
Jesus had entered Jerusalem in a triumphal procession and cleared the Temple, according to the Bible stories. Multitudes must have seen him.

Quote:
Just "bulletin point" similarities, and mostly contrived, IMHO. But I admit I can't rule out that someone more knowledgeable than myself may recognise that Leidner has a legitimate case.
I put them into bullet points to try to get you to follow them. If you want to read Leidner's book, there is a fuller explanation.

John Dominick Crossan, who is more knowledgable than you, agrees with three of these points and has not addressed the rest.

Quote:
That's quite ironic, Toto. So there couldn't have been copying because "the role was completely different"? Hmmm...
No - because the copying would have taken a different form.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 10:10 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
Default

Here's an interesting piece of info.
Quote:
(The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 36)
The Christian community in Rome was Greek speaking until the mid third century, and had frequent contacts with churches of the Greek East.
More than likely everyone but me already knew about these earliest, Roman, Greek-speaking Christians.
joedad is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 10:28 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Lightbulb

Quote:
Since we have no copies of Paul's letters or even any mention of them before the mid-2nd century, there is no way anything can be proven. But given that forgery of Christian documents in general and Paul's letters in particular was rampant, given that most scholars find some interpolation in other letters, the burden of proof should be on the one claiming Paul's letters are authentic and can be dated to the mid 1st c.
...for which I refer you to Mr Kirby's work. The work which you have consistently refused to address.

You also need to understand that claims of interpolation cannot be thrown out willy nilly, whenever it suits your purpose to do so. Interpolation can be proved by presenting different mss from different textual streams. (John 1:18, Acts 2:28 & I John 5:7 are classic examples.) The existence of interpolation is verified by the presence of a demonstrable inconsistency in the textual evidence.

That is the very least you need to do before you can present a plausible claim for textual interpolation. Don't you understand that? Don't you understand the importance of objective evidence in the context of an argument?

I would have thought that this was something an atheist would be good at, but my experience has IIDB has pretty much shattered that assumption.

Quote:
Consider one of Leidner's reasons for dating Paul's letters (and Paul) to past 70 CE: in Gal 4:25-26, Paul says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does this sound like the Jerusalem of 50 CE or the Jerusalem of post 70 CE?
Well in actual fact, it does indeed sound like the Jerusalem of 50 CE, yes. The Jerusalem of 50 CE was certainly "in slavery", since the Romans had occupied it for years. If he was talking about the Jerusalem of post-70 CE, he would make reference to the fact that (a) it was destroyed, (b) its inhabitants had been scattered, and (c) its temple had been reduced to rubble.

Such glaring omissions militate strongly against any suggestion that a post-70CE Jerusalem is here referred to. It just doesn't fit the text.

Quote:
The description tracks the apocryphal 4 Ezra, (2 Esdras) which speaks of "Zion, the mother of us all," which is currently in slavery, but shines as a heavenly city. (see 9:43 - 10:49)
No it doesn't. Paul doesn't even mention Zion. He's talking about Jerusalem.

It astonishes me that you can't tell the difference between the words "Zion" and "Jerusalem."
Evangelion is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.