Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 04-20-2003, 01:00 PM

B. H. Manners: Is there a link on the net that has the works listed by you available for study?

The list was provided by Metacrock and appears to come from this web page (or a similar one):

http://aggreen.net/bible/noncanon.html

Some of the links are broken. A similar list is here.

http://faculty.smu.edu/dbinder/extra.html

For documents before 200 CE, try my site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

best,
Peter Kirby

SLD · 04-20-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock

Meta => There actually weren't many dying rising savior gods in the Levant. Palistine was not greatly influenced by these cults. Mroeover the Jews were notorious for being exclucivistic. They thought pagan religion was run by demons. They may have had some exposure, but would not have taken them seriously.

I'm sure that you are correct about orthodox jews. However, they didn't run Palestine. The Romans did. My point is not that the Jews of Palestine would have taken them seriously, but that they were familiar with them due to exposure from other cultures with which they were in contact with. Jews lived throughout the Roman empire and travelled it extensively as well.

The Romans at first were sensitive to Jewish wishes and kept their religions out of Jerusalem proper. But that didn't stop them from being practiced in other areas. That is one of the main reasons for the religious uprisings by the Jews in the First and early second century.

Meta => It's true that the culture of Asia Minor was influential to the Jews in terms of how Jews of Asia Minor treated women. The freindships and warm personal feelings Paul expressed for women in his greetings probably are a reflection of that cultural up brining. But that in no way means that he was influenced by their mystery cults. It doesnt' matter that Jews were there, that does't prove that they altered their own religious views to suit the sorrounding culture. It might also mean that he was more sophisticated in his understanding of how not to be taken in by them.

I think it's real clear that Paul was combatting the mystery cults, he was not influenced by them. I think I prove this on my Jesus PUzzell 2 pages. I'll put up a thread soon. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is not the Jews who altered their religion to suit the mystery cults. What I'm arguing is that Paul would have been very familiary with them, even more than your typical jew in Palestine where you are correct, they would not have been as prevalent. The question of this thread though is whether he based the new religion on a real figure or a completely mythical one. Actually, I'm somewhat inclined towards your view - that he based it on a historical figure (at least slightly), and he may have even been involved in the suppression of the movement that historical figure started. However that historical movement was not a religious one, but a political one. One that meant to directly challenge the Roman rule and to re-establish the Davidian line of Kings, and usher in the "Kingdom of God." That's all the Messiah meant to 1st Century Jews of Palestine, and that's all that this historical Jesus wanted.

Respectfully,

SLD

p.s. Have a nice Easter.

Metacrock · 04-20-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JTVrocher
quote: Vinnie in answer to JTVrocher
Vinnie: When did Meta say Jesus claimed to be God?

quote:Peter Kirby
It's a common mistake to assume Messiah=God. I was having dinner with my dad and he mentioned that Jewish people must believe that God is more than one person because they expect the Messiah, who is divine. I had to explain to him that Jews believe God to be one person and that the Messiah expected by Jews is human (if perhaps an exalted human).

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter, if I say Christians believe Christ is Messiah and so believe he is God have I made a common mistake? If I were to say Jews of the 1st B.C.E. expected Messiah to be God I would be mistaken. Were I to say Jews of 2003 expect Messiah to be God I would be mistaken. I am a tad confused on how I made so common a mistake.

JT

Meta =>That is a total nonsequitter. We are talking about how one would interprit a text. A certain text speaks of Christ and not Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus the man it means the idea of the Messiah. To the Jews Messiah was not God. So it's not the same meaning.

Metacrock · 04-20-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Metacrock, thanks for your participation in this thread.

To make myself clear, what I intended to say is that the argument proposed in this thread is not convincing to me without further explication. I was quoting Doherty because he is correct to acknowledge diversity in ancient Christianity. I will quote it again so that you can comment on the point.

Meta => Peter, yes, you are right, earlty was diverse from the "get go." That's very true. Iv'e been a big fan of Biblical scholarship since highschool, even when I was an atheist I read this stuff all the time. I know it was diverse. That is beside the point, becasue for all it's diverseity, there is no record, clear and unarguable, of an early group that did not accept at least the facsimilie of a historical guy called "Jesus of Nazerath."

Quote:

"If Christianity is to be regarded as a single movement, then it is a wildly schizophrenic one. The variety and scale of response to one man defies explanation. The 'cultic' expression, epitomized by Paul, apparently abandoned all interest in the earthly life and identity of Jesus and turned him into a cosmic Christ who created the world and redeemed it by his death and resurrection.

Meta =>He's arguing form sign. These are the two things that Doherty's theory turns on: 1) argument form silence, 2) argument from sign.

I agree that Paul elivated Jesus to cosmic christ. That in no way means that he didn't accept the Historical Jesus! In terms of my christian faith, all Paul did was what any good theologian does. But Doherty is arguing the logic of someone I once met whose argument went like this:

1) There were Essenes in first century Palestine

2) Jesus lived in first century Palestine

3) Therefore, Jesus was an Essene.

Just because ther were diverse groups and an elivation to cosmic dimensions for the Messianich role doesn't mean that Paul or any major protion of the early chruch just stepped out of the historical framework for Jesus of Naz.

Quote:

Individual communities like those responsible for the Q document and the Gospel of Thomas, ignored that death and resurrection and present a teaching Jesus, a preacher of the coming Kingdom of God.

Meta =>The probelm with that is that while Thomas does contain a lot of early sayings, he's ignoring the fact that the form in which we have Thomas at Nag Hammadi is a late invention. They took an early saying source and put it into a fourth century framework. All the talk about 'the powers" in Thomas is right out of that fourth century Egyptian frame. So it's pointless to try and use that as a source for the hsitorical early chruch because we don't know how the latter guys reworked the early sayings.

Quote:

In what is probably the earliest stratum of material in the Gospel of John, Jesus is a type of 'descending-ascending' redeemer from heaven who saves by being God�s revealer (though he reveals nothing about him except that Jesus is his Son and representative);

Meta =>that assues of course that he can spot the earliest stratum. If he is true to form, he spots it by taking what agrees with his theory for the earliest stratum. Moreover, there is nothing about the descendingpascending type of figure that would preclude an historical man. But he's trying to read in mystery cult stuff to phenomena that are better accounted for by understanding heterodox judaism of the late first century. John is more akin to the Syboline Oraclesthan to the Greek mystery cults. He als totally ignores the early Kabalistic Memra connetion to logos and tries to connet it to philo. So he's just reading in what he want's to be there, resisting all the way any urge to make the more logical assumption.

later, John equates Jesus with the Greek Logos.

Meta =>speak of the devil. John's use of logos is much closer to the use made of Memra by the Targimum, not the Greeks. see Edersheim, he finds the Johannine Logos in Targum Jonanthan very clearly. IN fact mabye that's why its called "John."

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is the heavenly High Priest who offers his sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary, an expression of Alexandrian-style Platonism.

Meta =>bullshit! it was at qumran! that is not only right out of Esienman and Wise's findings of the Qumran group, but also backed up by Martiinez. The DSS guys had an exhaulted savior figure for the messiah who would enter the heavely tabernacle and make atonement for the people as the highpreist. It makes sense. Moses says there's a heavenly Tabernacle, so why shouldn't there be an heavenly high preist?

Quote:

In the Didache, Jesus is reduced to a non-suffering intermediary servant/child of God. He is presumed to lie behind the Wisdom-Word-Son mysticism of the Odes of Solomon. In the diverse strands of Gnosticism, Jesus (or Christ) is a mythical part of the heavenly pleroma of Godhead, sometimes a revealer akin to John�s, sometimes surfacing under other names like Derdekeas or the Third Illuminator.

Meta => That's another aspect of D's theory that is so bothersome. He reverses the process of mythology making that most anthropolgoists and mythogrophers find unviersal. He's got myth running backwards; from the abstract to the concrete which no one else ever sees in any myth. You can't give me an example of any other mythology that does that, why this one?

In point of fact, is the Didache a reduction of the Cosmic mystery man? Or is it closer to the early days of the Jewish-Christian sects such as Ebionites who didn't have the exhaulted savior figure?

Quote:

How many other forms of 'Jesus' did not survive in extant documents is impossible to tell, though Paul in his letters hints at divergent groups and apostles all over the place, who 'preach another Jesus' so different from his own that he can lay curses upon them and accuse them of being agents of Satan."

Meta =>That just says it all! It's so tempting to fill in those gaps with our wish list isn't it? And that's all he's doing!

btw can you give me the source on this qutoe? I think I'll include my answers here on my Doxa pages. Please?

Quote:

You have responded to my own statement about the diversity of Christian writings with this: "I think given that diversity it is all the more amazing that they kept as much uniformity as they did. That makes my arugment all the stronger. But you know, I am not claiming this as a universal standard for all historicity. I just think given the other arguments, it's a good indication."

This reminds me of an old apologetic standby. It is sometimes claimed that the gospels are to be believed because they exhibit a remarkable harmony. But when the apologist is presented with points of inconsistency, the apologist says, "Ah yes, the differences show that there was no collusion and thus make the accounts more reliable." In other terms, both contradiction and non-contradiction are taken as confirming evidence. But if all contingencies are taken to point to one conclusion, it is impossible for a person to recognize a situation in which that conclusion is false.

Meta =>ajhahahahaha, it's not all gravy you know!

Serilously, I admit that it was diverse. That just doesn't garauntee that part of that diversity included a non historical cosmic christ in place of J of N. I'm willing to admit that toward the end of the first century some factions obviously began turning in a gnostic direction.. and mabye there was a Cosmic Chrsit group some place. that just doesnt' prove that Paul was one of them!

Metacrock · 04-20-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Peter says:

Hold that thought. I want to get back to the matter of what data lay before us before we get too concerned with accounting for the data.

You say, "There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same."

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) he was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) at noon.
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) several women with MM discovered the empty tomb.
11) That this was in Jerusalem.

You write: "There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove. Here is just a partial list of source from this era, all of them agree on the points listed above. This list comes from a website,(Gospel of Thomas Home page)"

From the way that you use an unedited list of apocrypha like this, it is clear that you haven't read the texts in order to catalogue what they say about Jesus--hey, that's a tall order, and I haven't read all of these texts either. However, based on what I have read, I would submit two hypotheses about the data:

A. Most of the texts do not contain the eleven points listed above.
B. Most of the texts date after 130 CE.

The importance of the first point should be obvious. If we are going to assert that there are multiple versions of this story that agree, we should appeal to documents that tell the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But most of these documents do not go into any detail on either the death or the resurrection--for example, they don't say it was "at noon" or that there was an "empty tomb"--and thus they can't be counted as multiple versions of the story. Read The Epistle to the Laodiceans or The Apocalypse of Peter or The Acts of Paul and Thecla and tell me how much of the story of the life of Jesus you find therein.

Meta =>Yes but you see, you aren't paying fair attention to what I actually said. I didn't say that all of these sources are documentation for all 11 points. I said that in all the extrabibical extracanonical works there are none that flat out contradict them.

I do use other sources to speicifically argue for that point: GPete, Nichodemus, Epistel of the Aposltes and several others which I quote from from at length. But the purpose of this list is just to show the reader how man many extra canonical sources there are! that's it. I didn't say all of these have these 11 points! It's just to show many there are, and none of the do actually contradict the 11 points.

Doesn't realy matter how late they are, becasue I do use earlier ones. That list is not important, it's just to give a feel for how many there are. But I think you are wrong I thin it does include some that do have them.

Quote:

The importance of the second point may require elaboration. I use what I like to term the Hundred Year Rule. If a document dates more than one hundred years after the events described, and if there aren't mitigating circumstances that demonstrate reliability, then I don't take the testimony of that document as good evidence. (Of course, I don't assume that documents within 100 years are always right--that would be folly!)

Meta =>That's not necessarily a good rule. Because the Diatesseron almost runs afawl of it, and it is a valuable source for early readings. What matter is the survivle of a reading, in a certian form, not how old it is.

If you want to take that rule than you must rule out Thomas, because it is cleary re-worked in a fourth centruy frame.

Quote:

I think that any good historian ought to have some such rule, though they might call it the Fifty Year Rule or the Two Hundred Year Rule. But there comes a point where we've got to say, "hey, that guy's too distant in time to have a clue! Let's find out what's in the earlier sources."

Meta =>
Good historians are not that dogmatic. Of course I wouldn't use anything over 100 years, expect just to give the reader a feel for how many sources there are. but the point is, it's the survivle of an early reading, and that's why thomas is imortant, and all the Nag Hammadi stuff. Most of it is very late, 4th century, but shcolars are going through it with a fine tooth comb for things it can tell us about the first centry, becasue they realize that ancient readings can survive in latter texts.

Quote:

In the study of the historical Jesus, that point will come approximately at the time of the canonization of the four gospels. From the late second century onwards, it is evident that Christian writers are not passing on ancient oral tradition but rather relying on written sources (such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) for their information about Jesus. Any document produced after a certain point can be assumed to be familiar with the canonical four; if it treats the subject of Jesus, it does so in a commentative or elaborative or polemical way, but it does not bring new facts to the table. To be generous, I will modify my Hundred Year Rule to a 150 Year Rule to make the deadline 180 CE, but we've got to have some kind of rule.

Meta =>Yes, that's very good. Very sound thinking, I agree. But, the thing you aren't thinking about is that if the story had another version it would have spread through the prior sources used in these documents and would have wound up in one of these sources. With so many, we should expect at least one of them to contradict one of the basic points, if in fact there were multiple versions. You can say that late second century began the canonization process, but if the multple versions existed they would probably be found and passed on in one of these. These works didnt' go trhough any committees, they werent' edited by canonization police.

Quote:

With these considerations in mind, let's go through the list. If the document does not have more than a couple of the 11 points you list (most frequently none), then I will say that it fails A. If a document does not date earlier than 180, then I will say that it fails B.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B] -- fails A.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text] -- fails A.
A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts -- fails A and B.
An Arabic Infancy Gospel -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of James -- (Infancy Gospel) -- fails A.
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] -- fails A.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate] -- fails B.
The Gospel of Bartholomew -- fails B.
The Gospel of Peter -- fails neither A nor B.

Meta =>I dont' think so. Brown argues for early sources surviving in the readings. I think a second century date is better, and if not, at least the survivle of early material in the readings.

The Gospel of Thomas -- fails A.
The Gospel of Philip -- fails A and likely B.
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] -- fails neither A nor B.
The Secret Gospel of Mark -- fails neither A nor B.

The Acts of the New Testament -- fails neither A nor B (part of Luke-Acts).
The Acts of Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Barnabas -- fails A and B.
Martyrdom of Bartholomew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter -- fails A and B.
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Passing of Mary -- fails A and B.
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Martyrdom of Matthew -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Andrew -- fails A and possibly B.
The Acts of Peter and Paul -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Philip -- fails A and B.
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate -- fails B.
The Death of Pilate -- fails B.
The Acts of Thaddaeus -- fails A and B.
The Acts of Thomas -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- fails A and possibly B.
The Consummation of Thomas -- fails A and B.

The Apocalypse of Adam -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Esdras -- fails A and B.
The First Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Second Apocalypse of James -- fails A.
The Revelation of John the Theologian -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Moses -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Vision of Paul -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Peter -- fails A and B.
Fragments-The Apocalypse of Peter -- fails A.
The Apocalypse of Sedrach -- fails A and B.
The Revelation of Stephen -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of Thomas -- fails A and B.
The Apocalypse of the Virgin -- fails A and B.

The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle -- fails A and B.
The Epistle of the Apostles -- fails neither A nor B.
Community Rule -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of James -- fails A.
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar -- fails A and B.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ -- fails A.
John the Evangelist -- fails A and B.
The Apocryphon of John -- fails A.
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea -- fails B.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans -- fails A and B.
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca -- fails A and B.
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Peter to Philip -- fails A and possibly B.
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Caesar -- fails B.
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius -- fails B.
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia -- fails A and B.
The Avenging of the Saviour -- fails A and B.
The Three Steles of Seth -- fails A and possibly B.
The Book of Thomas the Contender -- repeat.

I could have made a mistake or two regarding the dates or exact content of these works. I trust that you will point them out to me.

So, those apocryphal documents that include several of the eleven points and that date before 180 are:

The Gospel of Peter
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Secret Gospel of Mark

Suddenly the list is much smaller and more manageable. To this list we may add the canonical four:

The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Mark
The Work of Luke-Acts
The Gospel of John

Quote:

Now that we have this list, we need to figure out which works are derivatives of which, and which works could provide independent witness to the eleven points. For example, it is apparent that Secret Mark is dependent on the original Gospel of Mark and that its material does not provide independent testimony to any of the eleven points.

Since we now have a more refined data base to work with, I invite you to formulate your argument in a more convincing way. What is it about the agreements and disagreements of these works that points to the historical nature of the stories?

I could say more but it is now late and I wouldn't want to beat up strawmen. I await your argument.

Meta =>Yes you have created a straw man and you know it. And guys like Iron Monkey will never stop beating the straw man. The point is [color=red]You can't give me any examples of any other versions of the story. You an't show one!

and there is another point about the survivle of ancient readings, which Koster's Diatesseron stuff proves is valuable even int he 100 years rule. SO I think your 100 years is an arbitray date and sets up a peralous assumption

best,
Peter Kirby [/QUOTE]

NOGO · 04-20-2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.
2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"
3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.
4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.
5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.
6) he was crucified under Pilate.
7) Around the time of the Passover.
8) at noon.
9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.
10) several women with MM discovered the empty tomb.
11) That this was in Jerusalem.

How many of these points were known before the Gospel of Mark was written?

Myths (and sometimes facts as well) tend to multiply and diverge with time when they are pass on by word of mouth. Widly disseminated written material does not tend to to diverge as much.

So I would say that if Meta can show that the eleven points above were widly known before Mark wrote them down then perhaps he would score some points.

What Vork alluded to is that the story of Jesus (these 11 points) was unkown before Mark. It is fiction not myth.

From Doherty's point of view, Jesus was a heavenly myth until Mark created the fictional story about him as a man.

Metacrock · 04-20-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K
Meta:

But your argument was based on the "fact" that real events only have one version of their facts passed down. This is an event that you agree is real and that you concede has more than one version of the facts. Whether or not you agree with the different versions doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. I'd say this pretty much blows your arguement out of the water.

I never made any dogmatic statment such that 'real events only have one version.' I said that since the story never proliphorated as myth alsways does, that is a good indication that everyone knew it was fact.

Crockett is a minor detail. Sorry, apologizes to Fess Parker and Disney, but Crokett is a detail, how he died is a detail, not the major story of the Alamo.

Metacrock · 04-20-2003, 04:43 PM

Ok guys, everyone makes mistakes. I must correct an oversight. I worded the intro to that list badly. I did say they are before the fourth century, so Peter's calling me on the 100 years rule, while a good point, is not really in contradictio with my cliams about the dates. But, the problem is I did word it poorly, my wording implies that all of these sources contain the 11 points.

I didn't mean to say that they all include all those points. They do not. None of the dispute the points, none of them give a trace of any other version of the story, that's what I meant to say.

Look for that correction Doxa soon.

thanks for pointing that out Pete.

Peter Kirby · 04-20-2003, 04:56 PM

Happy Easter, Meta!

Metacrock: I dont' think so. Brown argues for early sources surviving in the readings. I think a second century date is better, and if not, at least the survivle of early material in the readings.

I said that the Gospel of Peter fails neither A nor B. You took that in the opposite sense.

I don't know why you accuse me of constructing a strawman when I explicitly say that I don't want to attack a strawman and ask you to explain your argument!

I politely ask you to lay out the premises of your argument in a logical format. Then, when I understand exactly what you are arguing, I would be more likely to be convinced or more able to offer intelligent comment.

Let me give you an example of an (possibly unsound though valid) logical argument from a previous thread.

1. If a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (premise)

2. If a historical Jesus was crucified Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (premise)

3. If Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion, Paul visited the site of crucifixion. (premise)

4. If Paul visited the site of crucifixion, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

5. It is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

6. Assume that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (assumption for the reductio)

7. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (1 and 6)

8. ---- Therefore, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (2 and 6)

9. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty, and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (7 and 8)

10. ---- Therefore, Paul visited the site of crucifixion (3 and 9)

11. ---- Therefore, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (4 and 10)

12. ---- Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters, and it is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (5 and 11)

13. Therefore, it is false that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (6 and 12)

I am not endorsing this argument--I had weighed in against it--but it is an example of a logically valid argument, one in which the premises are clear and the conclusion follows from the premises. Some people do not like putting their arguments in a logically valid form, but I think it is a great way to figure out exactly where it is that two people disagree.

So, I await your argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 04-20-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Embarrassing material seems historically, more likely to go back to ground zero than to invention by some unknown person in the thirties or 40s IMO. Why would any Christian invent baptism by JBap and subject Jesus to him? Why would an early Jewish movement invent the fictional character of a crucified Messiah? Numerous datums go against the grain (embarrassing) of the evangelists. Why should they include this material? The evangelists all believed in a Gentile mission. In the Gospels we see Jesus limiting his mission to the people of Israel. If Mark was simply inventing, why invent material that goes against the theological grain of his Gospel? Why would Matthew and Luke follow suit? And why would the authors invent or include an account where Jesus derogatorily calls a gentile woman a "dog"?

I would like to see a mythologue reply to this.

best,
Peter Kirby

04-20-2003, 04:43 PM	#78
Metacrock Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 1,734	Correction to be made Ok guys, everyone makes mistakes. I must correct an oversight. I worded the intro to that list badly. I did say they are before the fourth century, so Peter's calling me on the 100 years rule, while a good point, is not really in contradictio with my cliams about the dates. But, the problem is I did word it poorly, my wording implies that all of these sources contain the 11 points. I didn't mean to say that they all include all those points. They do not. None of the dispute the points, none of them give a trace of any other version of the story, that's what I meant to say. Look for that correction Doxa soon. thanks for pointing that out Pete.

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

04-20-2003, 01:00 PM	#71
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	B. H. Manners: Is there a link on the net that has the works listed by you available for study? The list was provided by Metacrock and appears to come from this web page (or a similar one): http://aggreen.net/bible/noncanon.html Some of the links are broken. A similar list is here. http://faculty.smu.edu/dbinder/extra.html For documents before 200 CE, try my site: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ best, Peter Kirby

04-20-2003, 04:56 PM	#79
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Happy Easter, Meta! Metacrock: I dont' think so. Brown argues for early sources surviving in the readings. I think a second century date is better, and if not, at least the survivle of early material in the readings. I said that the Gospel of Peter fails neither A nor B. You took that in the opposite sense. I don't know why you accuse me of constructing a strawman when I explicitly say that I don't want to attack a strawman and ask you to explain your argument! I politely ask you to lay out the premises of your argument in a logical format. Then, when I understand exactly what you are arguing, I would be more likely to be convinced or more able to offer intelligent comment. Let me give you an example of an (possibly unsound though valid) logical argument from a previous thread. 1. If a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (premise) 2. If a historical Jesus was crucified Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (premise) 3. If Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion, Paul visited the site of crucifixion. (premise) 4. If Paul visited the site of crucifixion, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise) 5. It is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise) 6. Assume that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (assumption for the reductio) 7. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (1 and 6) 8. ---- Therefore, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (2 and 6) 9. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty, and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (7 and 8) 10. ---- Therefore, Paul visited the site of crucifixion (3 and 9) 11. ---- Therefore, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (4 and 10) 12. ---- Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters, and it is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (5 and 11) 13. Therefore, it is false that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (6 and 12) I am not endorsing this argument--I had weighed in against it--but it is an example of a logically valid argument, one in which the premises are clear and the conclusion follows from the premises. Some people do not like putting their arguments in a logically valid form, but I think it is a great way to figure out exactly where it is that two people disagree. So, I await your argument. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.