Radorth

An interesting statememt I meant to answer before:

Of course Clutch has simply helped make the case that Paul needed no evidence because of the WELL ESTABLISHED FACT of the crucifixion, not to mention the risen Lord who knocked him on his butt. (I realize skeptics don't believe that even though they insist an extant God would do such things). More likely, Paul did not go looking for evidence to tell others about since they and he already knew it as a done deal. Thus his silence ironically helps disprove "The Conspiracy of Silence."

Radorth

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Toto

This is not so obvious. Paul seems to have gotten all the evidence he needed from his spiritual experience. That single fact is consistant with either Paul not thinking that there was any historic Jesus to search for, or the crucifixion being so obvious he didn't need to prove it (or with whatever he wrote just not having been preserved.)

But if it were so obvious and well known, you still have to explain why there are no contemporary references to Jesus' ministry or crucifixion. In fact, you're right back at square one.

Radorth

Because it was well known, although the Romans doubtless saw him as just a trouble-maker, and crucified him like any other.

Radorth

Vorkosigan

This is again inconsistent with Doherty's premise which basically states that the Gospels are fiction because they are based on a single written source, that even Mark is a "come lately."

Nothing inconsistent about it. Nor does Doherty believe that the gospels come from a "single written source." Apparently your copy of The Jesus Puzzle is different than mine. In my copy, Doherty accepts Q, and sees the gospels as drawing extensively on the OT. Perhaps we are looking at two different Doherty-s.

Of course, nowhere have I ever said that I accepted Doherty's thesis. As a matter of fact, I have explicitly denied do so. I do not know the origin of the Christian legends about Jesus.

Maybe you didn't read the subject material, or else your thinking is inconsistent.

That's certainly true of at least one person in this conversation.

Of course if you want to admit one of Ed's main premises is wrong, your anaolgy gets better.

No need, since that is not one of Ed's main theses.

Apparently you still miss the whole point above- that while historians like Durant and Klausner do not believe Njal, they date Mark in the 60's and call it 'in essentials "genuine history." The Jewish Klausner expresses jealousy over it, as compared to other ancient works.

I am well aware of what Durant, a synthesizer and not an original writer, thinks. I'll give you the same challenge I give every apologist who wades in here and tries this line: please give me the methodology that historians use to separate fact from fiction in legends. Indeed, NT scholars recognize no such animal exists, as Crossan and others have stated.

Since Durant never supplies us with a methodology that underpins his opinions, they will have to remain interesting but ultimately worthless opinions.

If you want to throw these thoughtful skeptics in your "special pleaders" box, go ahead. I'd read up on them first though. Their rationale hardly qualifies as special pleading.

And yours has absolutely no qualifications at all. Methodology, please, not snide remarks.

But there is another problem. Njal's Saga was done by one writer and is patently fiction.

You would do well to read up on it. The Saga of Burnt Njal comes from one writer, mostly, but many have argued that it is true history, right down to the dialogue. However, the arguments for fiction have carried the day.

There is no proof at all that the Gospels come from one original writer, in spite of Doherty's gratuitous assertions.

Please tell us where Doherty makes this assertion. Doherty believes that all of the gospel legends are dependent on Mark. That is not the same as saying that they are from "one original writer."

We have no reason at all to doubt Luke.

Other than her copying from multiple sources, her propagandistic motives, her construction of a historical framework out of Josephus, her historical errors, her acceptance of obvious legends, her inability to provide dates for any particular action of Jesus, her incorporation of obviously ahistorical events and relationships like Jesus' relationship with John the Baptist....I could go on. Luke copied and elaborated on legends.

It is possible they got a few details wrong, especially if the sources were oral, but the inventing of such a story in a tiny period of time would require the greatest colusion to tell the greatest lie in history.

You seem unfamiliar with the basics of history. I suggest that you search the folklore around the Taiping leader Hong Ziu-chuan, or the Lubavitcher "Messiah" Rebbe Schneerson, or the many false Jewish Messiahs like Tzvi....legends grow extremely rapidly and elaborate very quickly, especially since people are deliberate liars and exaggerators.

Or simply the greatest story.

Hardly the greatest story. The Lord of the Rings is much better, and never killed anyone either.

That's what Durant says of course, saying it is either true, or "a greater miracle than anything recorded in the Gospels." That is not special pleading. It is simply rational thinking. His skepticism is not simply one-dimensional, you see.

Greeat, since it is so easy, please show us the methodology by which truth is separated from fiction in these legends.

Vorkosigan

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Radorth

Doherty

This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying. This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark.

Again, maybe you didn't read the subject material, or else your thinking is inconsistent.

BTW, which is it now? Are they too similar to be believed, or too different?

Egads, why defend someone you don't agree with and who actually robs skeptics of better supported arguments than the fringy ED's? Or do you just enjoy advertising your great learning and banging Christians? Danged if I can figure it out.

Sorry. Wisdom is justified by her children. And you can study the rest of your life and never get any. And if you claim to have an open mind and in fact do not, you wouldn't understand if I did tell you.

Radorth

"If I knew but all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman." (Pascal)

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Doherty
This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying. This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark.

Again, maybe you didn't read the subject material, or else your thinking is inconsistent.

Maybe you should try reading what you actually said, instead of changing your mind every paragraph. Here, I'll remind you of it:

• This is again inconsistent with Doherty's premise which basically states that the Gospels are fiction because they are based on a single written source, that even Mark is a "come lately."

Doherty DOES NOT say the Gospels are based on a single written source. He says the story of Jesus' life and death is based on a single written source. Entirely different points, and a distinction you missed. Read what the paragraph actually says, instead of what you'd like it to say. Why do think he wrote a whole chapter on Q?!

Egads, why defend someone you don't agree with and who actually robs skeptics of better supported arguments than the fringy ED's? Or do you just enjoy advertising your great learning and banging Christians? Danged if I can figure it out.

Yes, it appears many things, including plain English, are a mystery to you.

Sorry. Wisdom is justified by her children. And you can study the rest of your life and never get any. And if you claim to have an open mind and in fact do not, you wouldn't understand if I did tell you.

I knew you knew nothing about historiography. Let us know when you have a real live methodology that can tell fiction from fact in the gospels. NT scholars will find it quite useful.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

No need to go into a tizzy and start insulting me and NT scholars in general. I guess it depends on how you read "This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source" But as usual, ED has no time to elaborate, and his choir doesn't care. They will defend him to the bitter end anyway.

Did you see "Jesus' life"? Is this just another of his careless remarks?

Anyway the guy is a Jesus-myther, and the more I read his thesis, the more I think even "liberal" (Doherty's perjorative) scholars have already panned it. But I suppose he would categorize Durant and Klausner "conservative."

I'll grant he could have meant 2 sources, but no more. Not much of a difference. If Q would surface, he would say Mark copied that as well. We notice how he simply avoids the whole burden of proving John is relatively independent with an argument from authority. That's because an independent John screws up his theory, just like an independent Acts does, so he more or less blows them off.

I don't need to know a thing about historiography to refute Doherty, and point out that one reading him has more questions than answers. And that is all simplistic and presumptious thinking produces. Meanwhile, in order to defend him, you have to put 500 scholars in a little box. But I guess you didn't read Carrier's critique, where he says what a bad idea that is. Meanwhile two-dimensional skeptics obviously think his own "historiography" is full of holes anyway.

Radorth

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Vorkosigan,

Now, I'm not quite sure why do you consider Jesus' relationship with John the Baptist as "obviously ahistorical".

What reason would there have been for this theme to be invented in a later period, when Gentile-oriented Christians were so very busy minimising the connections of Jesus to Judaism?

In my view, the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist is one of the more historically reliable details in the gospels.

Best,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

No need to go into a tizzy and start insulting me and NT scholars in general.

Don't give me this "injured innocent" crap. You've been addressing the skeptics in the most patronizing tones since you arrived. Nor have I insulted NT scholars in general. I maintain, as they themselves admit both implicitly and explicitly, that they do not have reliable historical methodologies. It is not an insult to recognize facts; never have I slammed their competence in areas where they are demonstratably competent.

So where is this mysterious methodology? Or are you just going to quote Q at me again?

I guess it depends on how you read "This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source" But as usual, ED has no time to elaborate, and his choir doesn't care.

This is patronizing bullshit. Not only does Doherty maintain an extensive website, he has also published a book on the idea, and he elaborates it very clearly. I note that instead of engaging his ideas, you simply sit back and hurl patronizing nonsense. Have you any specific problems you'd like to raise?

Did you see "Jesus' life"? Is this just another of his careless remarks?

What are you talking about here?

Anyway the guy is a Jesus-myther, and the more I read his thesis, the more I think even "liberal" (Doherty's perjorative) scholars have already panned it.

I have not seen where Doherty uses "liberal" as a pejorative term. Please supply examples.

But I suppose he would categorize Durant and Klausner "conservative."

Now you're reading Doherty's mind. Another meaningless bit of trash. Can you come up with some cogent remarks on Doherty's thesis?

I'll grant he could have meant 2 sources, but no more.

It's clear you either haven't read, or didn't pay attention to, Doherty's book.

Not much of a difference. If Q would surface, he would say Mark copied that as well.

You obviously did not read his extensive discussion on Q, where he gives his ideas on Mark's relationship to Q and its community.

We notice how he simply avoids the whole burden of proving John is relatively independent with an argument from authority. That's because an independent John screws up his theory, just like an independent Acts does, so he more or less blows them off.

Doherty follows the emerging concensus that John is dependent on Mark and the other Synoptics. Two recent works mentioned on XTALK have argued that Luke actually knew John. In any case, since "Luke" wrote Acts and the Gospel by that name, and we know that the gospel is dependent on Mark, it is hard to see how Acts could be "independent" in any meaningful sense.

I don't need to know a thing about historiography to refute Doherty, and point out that one reading him has more questions than answers.

Then, instead of delivering meaningless patronizing horseshit, give us some solid arguments. Or give us your questions. I'm in the middle of the book now, and can easily answer them.

Thanks, BTW, for confessing that you don't know a thing about historiography.

Meanwhile, in order to defend him, you have to put 500 scholars in a little box.

By all means, produce the reliable historiographic method these scholars use to distinguish fact from fiction. But you can't, can you?

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

He had it coming. Some rigorous pounding is perfectly in order.