Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Douglas J. Bender · 11-17-2002, 09:27 PM

Clutch,

Quote:

Douglas, nowhere in your remarkable collection of words...

(I know - I wasn't as eloquent as I should have been. But there's no need to remind me.)

Quote:

...do you address the interesting question: Why would someone write an independent account of a detail as narratively embedded as a man's corpse bursting open after hanging himself, decomposing for some time, and the rope's breaking, without even vaguely mentioning that it was his corpse, that it had been hanging for some time, that it had decomposed, that he had hanged himself, that he had been hanged at all, that the rope broke, or that there was a rope?

I don't know. But where did I argue that Judas' body had been decomposing for some time? However, I thought I offered a sufficient reason for the authors mentioning the details they did, but not mentioning all the details - it boils down to their purpose for mentioning the event. Didn't I offer the example of someone being shot, and of someone in a swimming pool dying by choking? If I didn't here, it was in another, related, thread.

Quote:

Your answer seems to be: (1) Assume that the circumstances of the writing of the gospels precludes any error.

Not at all. In fact, I think there's good reason to believe that there is maybe one, or there are maybe two, "typographical" errors in the Bible. Specifically, in the "7000" versus "700" case in a couple of the Old Testament books. There might also be one in the case of the length of the stay of the ark of the covenant in the land of the Philistines - the Bible says "20" years (if I remember correctly), but if I did a correct analysis of the accounts of Saul's and David's life, then it would seem that it must have been there for at least 60 years. What I believe happened in this case (again, assuming my analysis is correct) is that in the Hebrew manuscripts used for the English translations, the Hebrew scribe misread a Hebrew "peh" for a Hebrew "koph" - two letters in the Hebrew alphabet which are exactly alike except for a little "dot/point" in the center of the "peh" (in Hebrew, numbers were represented by letters, and "koph" is "20", and "peh" is "80"). So, please adjust your view of me accordingly. Thanks.

However, your view of me is so far off the mark that I wonder why you would expect me to trust your judgment of the validity of my explanations. Others here have admitted that my account could reasonably explain the passages (though they then argue that it still just doesn't make sense to them why the authors would not go into more detail in their accounts) - why is it you cannot see what they see?

Quote:

Then, by premise (1), everything is just fine, honest.

Well, it would be, if premise (1) was true, wouldn't it?

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender · 11-17-2002, 09:56 PM

Quote:

That isn't what I mean. To make his case, Douglas has to argue that the text doesn't mean what it says it means.

Hogwash. To make your case, you have to argue that the text says more than it actually says. And then you try to make me prove that you're wrong, even when you can't see what's right in front of you. And then when you can't see what should be clear, you pretend I'm arguing absurdly.

Quote:

He's essentially said that Matthew and Luke were incompetent writers who left out vital information while trying to make their points.

Hogwash again (you're on a roll). I've already explained why, given the context of the books, certain facts regarding Judas' death would not have qualified as "vital information" - if the authors are not trying to explain the exact cause of Judas' death, then the exact cause of Judas' death is not "vital" to their purpose, now is it? And they would not be "incompetent" writers for leaving out irrelevant-to-their-purpose information, but rather they would be skilled writers.

Quote:

Then he accuses us of "sloppy reading" while assuming that a simpler explanation -- that the authors were making up their stories -- doesn't even need to be addressed for his version to be accepted as true.

Yes, you all are guilty of sloppy reading in this case - I can tell you right now that if this issue were slimmed down, and posed as a reading comprehension, or analytical, question on the GRE, none of you arguing that it is a contradiction would get the answer right. Seriously. (By the way, last I checked I got perfect scores on the reading comprehension, and analytical, portions of two complete GRE practice tests, so it's not likely that I'm mistaken in my assessment about the correctness of my position.)

And, I am not claiming that my version IS true or should be accepted AS true - I am saying that since it is reasonable and possible, one cannot say with certainty that it is NOT true. If you can show that another explanation is very much more likely than mine, then you would perhaps have a case to argue - you have not done so.

Lastly, I've explained why assuming that the authors were simply making up their stories is NOT a "simpler" explanation than the one I proposed - it's because for them to have done so would have meant that Luke had not read Matthew's book by the time Luke wrote Acts (rather unlikely, as it seems to me [by the way, where do these scholars get the idea that the Gospel writers waited decades before writing down the gospels?]), or that the Christian community was not close-knit and highly interested in what the leadership of that community taught and was doing, or some such highly unlikely scenario which would be necessary for either Matthew and/or Luke to so blatantly and obviously muck up their accounts of Judas' death. Besides, if one of them was so blatantly wrong, wouldn't word have gotten around to him rather quickly from the "man on the street", or from other Christians who knew, or had other versions of, the true story? And if he had made the story up anyway, why did he not simply correct it when his error or discrepancy was pointed out?

Quote:

That's the absurdity that I'm referring to.

An absurdity based on "sloppy reading" is no absurdity. But much of the reasoning you present would count as "absurd", I imagine.

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender · 11-17-2002, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Me: You people don't think very deeply about these things, do you?

FM: Oh, Douglas, I'm soooo hurt.

It wasn't directed at you only, and it wasn't intended to "hurt" anyone. It was my honest and amazed opinion. And it still is.

Quote:

Me: First of all, in the two accounts of Judas' death, the two authors can be assumed to have had close personal knowledge of each other (I don't know if there is any way to prove this, but I should think that two of the authors of the four gospels would have at least an acquaintance with the other, if they were contemporaries [which I believe they were]), if they were contemporaries.

FM: No, Douglas, we can't assume this. Both Matthew and Luke operated in different Christian communities and we can't assume they know each other.

Many of the leaders in the various Christian communities, especially the Apostles and those closely associated with the Apostles, traveled quite a bit. Especially in the early stages of establishing a Church founded on the same truths, the example of the "Jerusalem Council", and of Paul's meetings with other Apostles, should give an indication of the likelihood of two "high-up" leaders in the very early Church being acquainted with each other and each other's "teachings" and experiences.

Quote:

FM: Assumptions that make a desired conclusion more likely are questionable assumptions.

True. But it does not make them false or impossible, or even unlikely, does it?

Quote:

Remember what I said about the absurdity of your approach?

Yes, but I'm trying to forget it.

Quote:

Me: Second, if they were not contemporaries, then one or the other book, Matthew or Acts, was written sometime before the other; and given the close-knittedness of the Christian community enduring first century persecution, whichever book was written first would almost certainly have been known to the author of the other book, and thus the likelihood of this latter author mucking up the account of Judas' death to such an extreme degree becomes absurdly unlikely.

FM: Another assumption that is questionable.

I don't see any reason why.

Quote:

FM: Matthew and Luke clearly knew Mark,...

And how do you know this?

Quote:

...but wrote things that were contradictory to Mark, mostly because they didn't like the implications of Mark's narrative.

Trying to sneak in two huge, unsubstantiated, assumptions, eh? You didn't think I'd let you get away with that uncontested, did you?

Quote:

FM: You might compare Mark's and Matthew's accounts of Jesus's baptism. John and Jesus are portrayed in quite different lights in the two narratives.

I have, and I don't see at all how they are portrayed any differently in the two accounts (assuming you to be using "differently" to be comparing the two accounts, not John and Jesus).

Quote:

Me: Third, if they were contemporaries, then it is possible that neither one had read the other's book prior to writing their own book; however, again given their importance in the Church, it is unlikely that they would have received two versions of Judas' death from "word-of-mouth" - the "higher ups" in the Christian community (which would have included Matthew and Luke) would have maintained written and personal contact with one another (see the "Jerusalem Council" in the Book of Acts for one example of this), and an event important enough to later warrant inclusion in the Bible (Matthew's account, and Luke's, of Judas' death) almost certainly would have received some attention from those "higher ups", so that they would have discussed between themselves what occurred, either merely out of their own curiosity, or because they felt that the manner of Judas' death, or some specific details associated with it, evidenced God's hand in the matter.

FM: A third extremely dubious assumption. These folks were living in different communities in the 1st Century C.E.. There wasn't central control, and the transportation and communication systems in the first century was atrocious.

I'd always heard that the Roman Empire had established one of the most widespread and efficient transportation and communication systems the world had ever seen, until the advent of modern technology. Systems of roads, etcetera. Granted, they did not have email or cars or planes, but Paul himself managed quite a bit of travel and "communication" across a large area. The communities in question were well within efficient communication distances.

Quote:

And there is considerable evidence that Matthew and Luke revised Mark in ways that were more palatable to their theology.

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Your assumption is contradicted by the facts.

That's funny, since you have presented no relevant "facts" to contradict the assumption.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Family Man · 11-17-2002, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Hogwash. To make your case, you have to argue that the text says more than it actually says.

No, I'm saying that the text says exactly what it says. I'm not adding a thing. You're the one who's proposed that Judas tried to hang himself over a cliff, which is not information in the text. Not to mention his plumpness.

Quote:

And then you try to make me prove that you're wrong, even when you can't see what's right in front of you. And then when you can't see what should be clear, you pretend I'm arguing absurdly.

The only thing that is clear is that the accounts are contradictory. You're the one who can't see what's in front of you.

Quote:

Hogwash again (you're on a roll). I've already explained why, given the context of the books, certain facts regarding Judas' death would not have qualified as "vital information"

Which I've throughly refuted in another thread.

Quote:

- if the authors are not trying to explain the exact cause of Judas' death, then the exact cause of Judas' death is not "vital" to their purpose, now is it? And they would not be "incompetent" writers for leaving out irrelevant-to-their-purpose information, but rather they would be skilled writers.

But the manner of Judas' death was vital to their purpose.

Quote:

Yes, you all are guilty of sloppy reading in this case - I can tell you right now that if this issue were slimmed down, and posed as a reading comprehension, or analytical, question on the GRE, none of you arguing that it is a contradiction would get the answer right. Seriously. (By the way, last I checked I got perfect scores on the reading comprehension, and analytical, portions of two complete GRE practice tests, so it's not likely that I'm mistaken in my assessment about the correctness of my position.)

The GRE people would never put such poor writing on the GRE (I've taken the exam, by the way). This is a writing problem, not a reading one.

Quote:

And, I am not claiming that my version IS true or should be accepted AS true - I am saying that since it is reasonable and possible, one cannot say with certainty that it is NOT true. If you can show that another explanation is very much more likely than mine, then you would perhaps have a case to argue - you have not done so.

It is not reasonable and possible only in the theoretical sense. Practically, it's absurd. It is much, much, much, much more likely that Luke and Matthew were making up stories to fit their theology. You haven't even begun to refute that argument.

Quote:

Lastly, I've explained why assuming that the authors were simply making up their stories is NOT a "simpler" explanation than the one I proposed - it's because for them to have done so would have meant that Luke had not read Matthew's book by the time Luke wrote Acts (rather unlikely, as it seems to me [by the way, where do these scholars get the idea that the Gospel writers waited decades before writing down the gospels?]), or that the Christian community was not close-knit and highly interested in what the leadership of that community taught and was doing, or some such highly unlikely scenario which would be necessary for either Matthew and/or Luke to so blatantly and obviously muck up their accounts of Judas' death. Besides, if one of them was so blatantly wrong, wouldn't word have gotten around to him rather quickly from the "man on the street", or from other Christians who knew, or had other versions of, the true story? And if he had made the story up anyway, why did he not simply correct it when his error or discrepancy was pointed out?

Probably because a) it wasn't pointed out to him (another bad assumption on your part) and b) even if it was, why would he assume that his version is wrong and Matthew's was right? Sloppy thinking on your part, I'm afraid.

Quote:

An absurdity based on "sloppy reading" is no absurdity. But much of the reasoning you present would count as "absurd", I imagine.

As I said before, it is the author you has responsibility for clear communication, not the reader. Taken in context and plainly read, the two stories are clearly contradictory. What you propose not only isn't clearly in front of me, it violates the facts and the context of what is written. Your saying otherwise doesn't change that basic fact.

BTW: I suggest we restrict our discussion on the other thread. No sense in having the same discussion in two places.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless · 11-18-2002, 06:08 AM

As we already have far too many threads about the specifics of the death of Judas, I'll keep this general.

Why highlight Biblical contradictions?

To counter the propaganda of the inerrantists.

There are people out there who insist on pretending that the various books of the Bible form a perfectly consistent - indeed, supernaturally consistent - account. I have seen fundies argue that there are NO errors in the Bible, and that no collection of books written solely by mere humans could possibly be so perfectly consistent: hence, it's all the Inerrant Word of God.

Whereas the truth is that the books are at least as contradictory as we should expect from human authorship. The gymnastics of the apologists, if applied to other books, would be capable of showing that Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and the U.S. Constitution are entirely free of mutual contradictions. Therefore they are worthless.

NOGO · 11-18-2002, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Douglas J. Bender
again given their importance in the Church, it is unlikely that they would have received two versions of Judas' death from "word-of-mouth" - the "higher ups" in the Christian community (which would have included Matthew and Luke) would have maintained written and personal contact with one another (see the "Jerusalem Council" in the Book of Acts for one example of this), and an event important enough to later warrant inclusion in the Bible (Matthew's account, and Luke's, of Judas' death) almost certainly would have received some attention from those "higher ups", so that they would have discussed between themselves what occurred, either merely out of their own curiosity, or because they felt that the manner of Judas' death, or some specific details associated with it, evidenced God's hand in the matter.

Really!
Just look at the most important event in history according to Christians and that is the resurrection. Surely the "higher ups", as you say, should have noticed that the Sunday morning accounts contradict (try Matthew vs John).

The fact that even these accounts of utmost importance to Christianity were not sorted out is proof that all that you claim is just nonsense.

Vesica · 11-18-2002, 08:52 AM

WHOA! Hold on a minute.... How did a thread asking if it was worthwhile to post reams of Biblical contradictions turn into a debate about accounts of the death of Judas??

Should Biblical contradictions be pointed out?

Yes because you might convince someone somewhere to think for themselves, which is a beautiful thing.

Should they be pointed out in every other thread here on the IIBB?

NO. Why? 1) Preaching to the choir - one assumes such arguments would be more effective if they were aired in a forum that contained more Chrisitians than this one. and 2) They always seem to degenerate into flames and broad statements about the evils of the Christians and thier religion and how the world would be a better place without them...While I can understand where this anger is coming from, it does get old to calmly insert little 'Tone down the hatemongering' comments here and there. After all I am not a therapist though some obviously need to work through some things with one.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vesica ]</p>

Family Man · 11-18-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesica:
[QB]WHOA! Hold on a minute.... How did a thread asking if it was worthwhile to post reams of Biblical contradictions turn into a debate about accounts of the death of Judas??

My apologies. I was simply making a point about how illogical and silly Christians defenses are. Douglas came on and proved my point. I should have cut and paste his reply onto the appropriate thread and continued from there.

Vesica · 11-18-2002, 10:17 AM

No Problem....I just found it hilarious that a thread discussing the rants and problems that come up when we get into these topics turned into an illustration!

Clutch · 11-18-2002, 10:49 AM

Well... my OP did recommend encouraging fundies to rehearse their craziness publically and often.

But with Douglas, there is a question of the diminishing marginal returns on such rehearsals.

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

11-18-2002, 06:08 AM	#15
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	As we already have far too many threads about the specifics of the death of Judas, I'll keep this general. Why highlight Biblical contradictions? To counter the propaganda of the inerrantists. There are people out there who insist on pretending that the various books of the Bible form a perfectly consistent - indeed, supernaturally consistent - account. I have seen fundies argue that there are NO errors in the Bible, and that no collection of books written solely by mere humans could possibly be so perfectly consistent: hence, it's all the Inerrant Word of God. Whereas the truth is that the books are at least as contradictory as we should expect from human authorship. The gymnastics of the apologists, if applied to other books, would be capable of showing that Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and the U.S. Constitution are entirely free of mutual contradictions. Therefore they are worthless.

11-18-2002, 08:52 AM	#17
Vesica Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sunny FLA USA Posts: 212	WHOA! Hold on a minute.... How did a thread asking if it was worthwhile to post reams of Biblical contradictions turn into a debate about accounts of the death of Judas?? Should Biblical contradictions be pointed out? Yes because you might convince someone somewhere to think for themselves, which is a beautiful thing. Should they be pointed out in every other thread here on the IIBB? NO. Why? 1) Preaching to the choir - one assumes such arguments would be more effective if they were aired in a forum that contained more Chrisitians than this one. and 2) They always seem to degenerate into flames and broad statements about the evils of the Christians and thier religion and how the world would be a better place without them...While I can understand where this anger is coming from, it does get old to calmly insert little 'Tone down the hatemongering' comments here and there. After all I am not a therapist though some obviously need to work through some things with one. [ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vesica ]</p>

11-18-2002, 10:17 AM	#19
Vesica Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sunny FLA USA Posts: 212	No Problem....I just found it hilarious that a thread discussing the rants and problems that come up when we get into these topics turned into an illustration!

11-18-2002, 10:49 AM	#20
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Well... my OP did recommend encouraging fundies to rehearse their craziness publically and often. But with Douglas, there is a question of the diminishing marginal returns on such rehearsals.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.