Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:19 am

Prof Mark Bilby surprises me. He is enough critical mind to write so:

My fresh analysis is confirming much of what Vinzent, Klinghardt, Knox, Tyson and others have found about the Gospel of Marcion and its relationship to the synoptic Gospels.

In my view, credible historical-critical scholars can no longer refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as if any of them are singular productions or first century creations. All of these texts have 2-3 major strata evidencing very different editors, concerns, educational levels, etc.. All of these texts were being heavily edited and re-written well into the 2nd century. Ultimately, the Gospels that are in our Bibles and on which many, many commentaries are written are mid-2nd century productions, which is but to say that the majority of so-called scholarly and commentary literature is deeply wrong because it is deeply unscientific.

For example, the Gospel of Mark is not a Gospel from the 70s: it is a combination of a major stratum from the 70s and a major stratum from the 140s. All the commentaries, books, and articles that treat Mark as if it were a coherent, unified production of a singular moment in time in the 70s are essentially committing massive, gross and flagrant anachronism and thoroughly misunderstanding both strata.

This all reminds me of what a Hebrew Bible professor colleague has on the sign of his office: “The Pentateuch is a Post-Exilic Compilation.” Yes, the Pentateuch had many pre-exilic sources, but a massive amount of post-exilic editorial work was what created the Pentateuch as a standardized collection. The same kind of sign should be posted on the office of every historical-critical scholar of the New Testament: “The Four Canonical/Early-Orthodox Gospels are Coordinated Mid-Second Century Productions.”

https://vocesanticae.com/2020/09/08/fir ... -uploaded/

...but then he is both a Christian and a historicist worthy of a James McGrath. And yes: unfortunately the only comparison is an insult for me.

Where I realize that the biblical studies are definitively doomed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:59 am

Image
Image

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6216
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:16 am

Bilby is calling Gospel of Marcion 'early Luke' and the Third Gospel https://vocesanticae.com/2020/07/21/if- ... look-like/, and he's looking at a 'First Gospel' he calls New Q, Neue Quelle (Qn), or 'Gospel of the Poor' https://zenodo.org/record/4019978#.X2CpZHkzbZs

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:21 am

Would not Gospel of the Poor be Gospel of the Ebionites? I didn't click the link.
Image

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:59 am

Reading Bilby's view, his enthusiasm for his presumed discovery of a new version of Q with the resurrection elements (nota bene: a point denied by Earl Doherty about Q), the suspicion increases that there is a Christian agenda behind the existence of Q, to confirm the historicity of their palatable Jesus.

The Christian scholars have no fear at all to touch Marcion, if even Marcion can support their views.

The famous "pact with the devil" is in action here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:05 am

Judge by yourself. Can a serious scholar talk in the following terms:

Hypothesis 2. The co-leader and chief patron of the Joshua Movement was Miryam, who was originally the leader of an entourage of women supporting John the Baptist, but who transferred her allegiance to Joshua after John was imprisoned.
Hypothesis 3. Miryam was the biological mother of a child or children to Joshua.
Hypothesis 4. Joshua of Nazareth died in 36-37 CE as the non-violent rhetorical leader of a slaverevolt, and the outrage over his unjust death led to the death of Pilate, either directly by a mob uprising or as a suicide in response to a mob uprising.
Hypothesis 5. After the death of Joshua, Miryam was later given to James, who may or may not have been Joshua’s biological brother.
Hypothesis 6. Qn is a revolutionary community memory transcript and diaspora call for assistance
composed around 65-69 CE, during the early phase of the Jewish War.
Hypothesis 7. The Jewish War should be considered and renamed the Second Joshua Uprising.
Hypothesis 8. The Apostle Paul supported the buildup to and launching of the Second Joshua Uprising both socially and financially

The point is that Bibly is a real scholar, if he has arrived to place the writing of the gospels in the second century CE.

Hence the point of this thread is to observe the paradox of what does the faith on an intelligent person.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

vocesanticae
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:10 pm

Bilby responds to re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by vocesanticae » Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:17 pm

Saw a lot of web traffic to my blog coming from this thread, so here I am. Happy to verify my identity in any number of ways, including by writing in the next update/upload to my Gospel of the Poor book or my blogs something funny or cute that Giuseppe asks (within reason, of course).

Any questions I can answer? Problems with my methods or proofs in my book that I can address in the book itself? (Because I am treating it as an iterative Open Science publication to start, complete with hypotheses, scientific method, and lots of scientific proofs, I can make adjustments, corrections, retractions, etc., in the book as it evolves. Which is but to say, I'm sure I've made lots of errors, and I'm more than happy to correct them to improve the book. I'm committed to this work enacting a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement, rather than silly academic gotcha games.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7873
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bilby responds to re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:25 pm

vocesanticae wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Saw a lot of web traffic to my blog coming from this thread, so here I am. Happy to verify my identity in any number of ways, including by writing in the next update/upload to my Gospel of the Poor book or my blogs something funny or cute that Giuseppe asks (within reason, of course).

Any questions I can answer? Problems with my methods or proofs in my book that I can address in the book itself? (Because I am treating it as an iterative Open Science publication to start, complete with hypotheses, scientific method, and lots of scientific proofs, I can make adjustments, corrections, retractions, etc., in the book as it evolves. Which is but to say, I'm sure I've made lots of errors, and I'm more than happy to correct them to improve the book. I'm committed to this work enacting a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement, rather than silly academic gotcha games.
Hi.

From pages 29-30 of your file:

Select a subset of three texts with obvious interdependent relationships, and arrange them in parallel according to your hypothesis of their historical, sequential relationships, from earlier/originator (Text 1) to middle/mediator (Text 2) and finally to last/receiver (Text 3).

Reception Type 1. Text 2 receives/copies Text 1 (1→2; 1st independent reception)

Reception Type 2. Text 3 receives/copies Text 1 independent of Text 2 (1→3; 2nd independent reception)

Reception Type 3. Text 3 receives/copies Text 1 as mediated or transformed by Text 2 (1→2→3; 3rd dependent reception)

Once you have detected all three reception types, well, then you’ve got it. You have established a historical, sequential relationship among these texts. Again, the more evidence and data you run in your analysis, the higher your confidence can be in your conclusion.

Try it in reverse, and it would not work, because the Mediator text does not piggyback backwards in time, from a Later text to an Earlier text. The signal synthesizing process moves one direction in time: forward. That forward directionality is what makes historical sequencing possible. All living things, including sacred texts, are time-bound.

Given three parallel texts, numbered 1, 2, and 3 in the order I hypothesize they were composed historically, what is an example of a kind of passage shared by all three texts which would have had to have gone from 1 through 2 to 3 rather than, say, from 3 through 2 to 1? What makes the textual changes irreversible, as it were? How do you determine that text 3 took something modified by text 2 from text 1, rather than text 1 taking something modified by text 2 from text 3? (I have looked for examples from the long middle synopsis section of the file, but I feel I am not understanding something, because I can always easily imagine different orders of composition besides 1, 2, 3.)

Also, on a side note, from page 15:

The Qn opening quotation, “Physician, heal yourself” (Luke 4.23), is a verbatim quotation from Aesop’s Fables.

Are you sure? I know that one of the Fables, "The Frog and the Fox," bears a similar meaning as a whole, but I do not think it quotes the actual saying, "Physician, heal yourself," at least not verbatim.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

vocesanticae
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:10 pm

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by vocesanticae » Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:49 pm

Hi Ben,

Thank you so much for the question and the constructive feedback. I'll take another look at the Aesop quote/reference in 4.23. Don't want to overstate my case there.

About the Signals Triangulation Theorem, this is *exactly* what I wanted to be the start of this discussion, because only when we can agree on legitimate, verifiable, reproducible scientific methods for our work on ancient texts (i.e., discrete data strata) can we expect to come to logically sound, historically legitimate conclusions about those data strata.

It's not simply about tracing the *direction* of signal transmissions. It's about tracing the process of how signals are synthesized over time (the third signal transmission type), and coupling this with triangulation (the basic principle for locating anything in space as well as time), to ensure independent transmission of two other signal types. The third type is the key, but it has to work in concert with the other two. The core of the theorem for sequencing texts is that synthesizing only goes forward in time, *never* backwards. Like our DNA, our speech and thought patterns are combinations of what came before. We can never give birth to the earlier combinatory signal sets that are our parents or grandparents. They can only give birth to us, and we to our children, and so on. Evolution isn't just the basic principle of life; it is how all signaling works. Evolution can be degradation or evolution of traits that are disadvantageous, but there is and can never be de-evolution.

For example, if I gave you three statements, how would you order them sequentially as to when they first emerged in history and how they are related to each other?

"May the schwartz be with you."
"The schwartz, the force, same difference."
"May the force be with you.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8025
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Bilby: a mix of fine exegesis and naive historicism

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:53 pm

Hi Mark,

you write:

and yet still provides the means to reconcile it with Vinzent’s view that the Gospel of Mark reflects a clear, late redactional program that may well be anti-Marcionite

https://vocesanticae.com/2020/08/03/hal ... -and-late/

What do you think precisely in Mark, as being anti-Marcionite ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply