Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
But if the Marcionites were right Neil then Paul also wrote the gospel so not much of a point
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
The gospelsneilgodfrey wrote:Believe me, if you could point to first-century artifacts confirming anything about Jesus I promise you I would not reject them but revise my whole viewpoint on how Christianity began. I've changed my mind several times before on critical issues and would be very willing to do so on this one, too.Mental flatliner wrote:Ethically, I can't answer this question. Whatever evidence I give you will be rejected, and you'll increase the size of the void you call a mind.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:What 1st century "artifacts" do you believe confirm anything about Jesus? What verifiable events? What narratives corroborate the Gospels and which Gospels do they corroborate?
The epistles
The entire body of early Christian writings by people who took the first two as authentic
The entire body of non-Christian writings still extant that took the first two as authentic
Assuming that these items are not authentic is academic suicide. If you want them to be something other than first century sources, you have a burden of evidence.
If you find yourself caught up in the dysfunction of "assuming" they are not authentic simply because someone else told you what to think, and you were not sensible enough to explore for yourself, your dysfunction is your own fault.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
In other words, you can't name anything. You need to quit making stuff up. It's getting kind old. So are the ad hominems for that matter.Mental flatliner wrote:Ethically, I can't answer this question. Whatever evidence I give you will be rejected, and you'll increase the size of the void you call a mind.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:What 1st century "artifacts" do you believe confirm anything about Jesus? What verifiable events? What narratives corroborate the Gospels and which Gospels do they corroborate?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
First of all, the gospels are not 1st century artifacts. The copies we have are mostly 4th Century with a few fragmments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but not a scrap from the 1st Century.Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels
The epistles
The entire body of early Christian writings by people who took the first two as authentic
The entire body of non-Christian writings still extant that took the first two as authentic
Assuming that these items are not authentic is academic suicide. If you want them to be something other than first century sources, you have a burden of evidence.
If you find yourself caught up in the dysfunction of "assuming" they are not authentic simply because someone else told you what to think, and you were not sensible enough to explore for yourself, your dysfunction is your own fault.
Secondly, the gospels are fiction. That's not "assumption," that's what the evidence shows. you shouldn't use phrases like 'academic suicide" when you have never had any experience of academia yourself. You're talking to people who DO have academic experience in these areas, though you may not be aware of it.
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
Oh, I am interested and I agree that this would be a very interesting discovery. I'm just not sure whether the theoretical reconstruction of a putative Q document or the discussion over whether this was one document or several different ones leads us any closer to a solution. We have the Gospel of Thomas and the Didache, so we have an idea about some of the diversity slightly later. Unfortunately, that's as far as it gets. The Q question is as fascinating as it is unresolvable at the moment.neilgodfrey wrote:I'm not sure if you're interested but there is more to it than that. If there were such a document then it is significant because it would be our earliest evidence for both Jesus and his followers that dates to the time of Paul's own writings. That leads to significant questions for a number of scholars: why is there such completely different kinds of evidence at the earliest strata for Jesus/Christianity? On the basis of Q we can argue that the first Jesus followers had no interest in the death of Jesus -- it meant nothing to them in any "religious" sense. Jesus to this "Q community" of Galilee was little more than an inspiring teacher-founder of their movement.
And that raises more questions about the origin of Christianity as we know it.
It's a pity that we have all the gospels only in late forms. It would be nice to see some of the composite parts on their own, but I'm afraid that won't happen.
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
This is an affirmative claim for which you (obviously) have a burden of evidence.Diogenes the Cynic wrote: First of all, the gospels are not 1st century artifacts.
Given your weaknesses, I won't burden you with asking. You disregard all such requests.
But I will say that the gospels claim to be 1st century products, and they're frequently quoted by 1st, 2nd and 3rd century sources. This is enough to show their general origin. I doubt that literary analysis is anything you would be able to consider, though. Denial is your only skill.
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
Not really. They are undated. And as physical scraps are much later, we can only be sure of their state at that point.Mental flatliner wrote:But I will say that the gospels claim to be 1st century products...
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
How do you know the gospels are first century sources? (I am not denying they are -- I am asking you how YOU know they are.) Is it because someone told you want to think? If not, how do you know?Mental flatliner wrote:If you find yourself caught up in the dysfunction of "assuming" they are not authentic simply because someone else told you what to think, and you were not sensible enough to explore for yourself, your dysfunction is your own fault.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
I treat all historical sources equally: they are exactly as their authors intended until proven otherwise.neilgodfrey wrote: How do you know the gospels are first century sources? (I am not denying they are -- I am asking you how YOU know they are.) Is it because someone told you want to think? If not, how do you know?
The gospels claim to be eye-witness accounts, therefore derive from the 1st century.
It's reasonable to conclude they are as they claim simply because they agree with each other in every respect, offering corroboration of the events they relate. It's also reasonable to conclude they are 1st century texts because of the many references made to them in other 1st and 2nd century texts.
Given these facts, it's irrational to claim they are not from the 1st century. You have to dismiss evidence to do so, and this can only be done if motivated by bias, disqualifying you from any rational discussion.
Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
You're still arguing that? Luke states that he is not an eyewitness, Matthew and Mark don't say record whether they are or not (as far as I remember), and John's claim seems largely rhetorical. You have yet to give your proof of their being eyewitness accounts, which you say would be really easy for you. If it's so easy, why don't you just give us the passages already instead of ignoring everyone who proves you wrong? How can you claim to be truly academically minded when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, and continue to insist that you're right, even when conclusively proven wrong?Mental flatliner wrote:I treat all historical sources equally: they are exactly as their authors intended until proven otherwise.neilgodfrey wrote: How do you know the gospels are first century sources? (I am not denying they are -- I am asking you how YOU know they are.) Is it because someone told you want to think? If not, how do you know?
The gospels claim to be eye-witness accounts, therefore derive from the 1st century.
It's reasonable to conclude they are as they claim simply because they agree with each other in every respect, offering corroboration of the events they relate. It's also reasonable to conclude they are 1st century texts because of the many references made to them in other 1st and 2nd century texts.
Given these facts, it's irrational to claim they are not from the 1st century. You have to dismiss evidence to do so, and this can only be done if motivated by bias, disqualifying you from any rational discussion.
Yet you claim that you're not trolling.