Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:41 pm I think I know who this Karavan character is. He's this apologetic nutcase that goes by "korvexius" and "chonkshonk" on r/academicbiblical. You can tell it's him because he always uses words like "destroyed" and "garbage". He's your typical immature internet dork. Dude is really strange. He's obsessed with mythicism - thinks it's delusional to question whether Jesus existed but completely rational to believe some dude that lived over 2000 years ago was god and rose from the dead! You're all definitely wasting your time with this guy. He just gives anyone who disagrees with him attitude. I've seen him get "destroyed"(as he always likes to say) by the user "AllIsVanity" on r/academicbiblical.
Ah, II thought that karavan gave hints about being a Christian with eir insistence upon Marcion as corruptor and the integrity of the New Testament despite no centralized editor. Would you be kind enough to link us to some of the debates that you cite?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

If it be thought strange and hypocritical that I ask for sources from nightshadetwine while condemning karavan for not seeking O'Neil's language himself, I must note that nightshadetwine is discussing much more specific things (viz., debates in which a person or two were defeated by a person) than what I chided karavan for not researching (viz., language from a prolific writer whose words are often publicly available and easily searchable for specific language).
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

karavan wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:15 pm ABuddhist, why keep spamming your point on apocalypticism? You know I debunked it, and you know you can't answer literally anything I brought up. No one else is reading your comments but me and occasionally someone else. Who are you looking to fool?

"the gospels are similarly filled with miraculous events and repetitions about Jesus's sanctity"

But they're also fulfilled with Jesus doing mundane things, or just teaching certain things chapter after chapter. Anyone who thinks the Gospel narrative is just one miracle after the other obviously hasn't read it and is trying to come up with an escape trick from basics.

Other facts waiting for a response: whether or not a specific document called "Q" existed, there were obviously pre-Gospel texts that the Synoptic Gospel authors knew of, and ABuddhist, after finally producing his citation for the Buddhism thing ... turns out it has no parallels LOL.
I freely confess that today, I decided to remove 1 post written by karavan from my ignore list so that I could investigate eir ideas about the gospels as fulfillment of prophecy; I decided to write the following response to eir words against me.

1. I was not spamming. Rather, I was writing variations and improvements to discussions about apocalypticism within early Christianity. If I had repeated the same message without variation, then I would have been spamming.

1. I do not know that karavan has debunked my posts because all of Karavan's posts are replaced by the words "karavan, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post. Display this post." unless I choose to read some posts by karavan - which I rarely do (and in fact have done only twice after making karavan the only member of my ignore list on this forum).

2. Why assume that I am trying to fool anyone? I am presenting my thoughts in hope that other people may find them interesting and that karavan would cite for me a single pre-gospel text presenting Jesus as a postapocalyptic prophet. This would have to include a PM to me, though, because karavan's posts are hidden from me unless i indicate otherwise for individual posts - which I rarely do, having done so only twice since I added karavan to my list of posters whom I ignore (as the only member!). Even if it be assumed that I am trying to fool people, karavan's words wouldanswer the question - the persons whom I would be attempting to fool would be the few other people who, karavan and I agree, read this thread.

3. karavan misunderstands what people mean when they describe a text as "filled with something". Such a text is not being claimed to only consist of something, but rather to a text which contains many examples of something. The gospels and namthars both contain frequent examples of miraculous events and claims about their subjects' sanctity, but they also contain scenes in which their subjects preach, travel, and do mundane things. For example, namthars about Longchenpa are filled with details about where he travelled (meaning, of course, that they have other contents also, including miraculous events and repetitions about his sanctity) and include other aspects, including mundane details such as his negotiation with his teacher about paying fees, texts of preaching which he gave to disciples, and details about his settling local disputes in areas where he lived. My source for this is "The Life of Longchenpa: The Omniscient Dharma King of the Vast Expanse" by Jampa Mackenzie Stewart, which is described as "Compiled from numerous Tibetan and Bhutanese sources, including Longchenpa's autobiography and stories of his previous lives and subsequent rebirths, The Life of Longchenpa weaves an inspiring and captivating tale of wonder and magic, of extraordinary visions and spiritual insight, set in the kingdoms of fourteenth-century Tibet and Bhutan. It also reveals for the first time fascinating details of his ten years of self-exile in Bhutan, stories that were unknown to his Tibetan biographers." The fact that karavan wrongly assumed that namthars and gospels have no parellels is due to eir fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to describe a text as "filled with something" and by a stubborn unwillingness to research what namthars contain. Since I made no claim that the gospels consist only of miracles, karavan's bizarre allegation that the fact that I made this claim is proof that I have not read the gospels is even easier to dismiss as false. I have read the gospels. I have also read buddhists' text - which is more than can be said about karavan as e repeatedly reveals eir ignorance about Buddhism in trying to refute me.

4. Appealing to pre-gospel written texts which served as the basis for gospels is fundamentally problematic for the same reasons as I raised with Q.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by mlinssen »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:34 am 4. Appealing to pre-gospel written texts which served as the basis for gospels is fundamentally problematic for the same reasons as I raised with Q.
How is that problematic? Can you give a pointer to your Q response?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

mlinssen wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:19 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:34 am 4. Appealing to pre-gospel written texts which served as the basis for gospels is fundamentally problematic for the same reasons as I raised with Q.
How is that problematic? Can you give a pointer to your Q response?
Certainly.

Would you be kind enough to tell me whether the rest of my response was skilled and appropriate?
ABuddhist wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:35 pm However, I think that the following points deserve further consideration: why Q is not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death (in order to address potential allegations that I am moving the goal-posts); and (2) sources (both primary and secondary) about Menandros the Greek King of Bactria (in order to refute karavan's suspicions that I am untrustworthy in my claims about Mahayana Buddhism).

1. Why Q is not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth

The root of the problem with relying upon Q to prove anything about Jesus is that it does not survive, nor is it attested from patristic or similar sources. Rather, it is a hypothetical document, dating from the 19th century, created in order to explain material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark. Therefore, the possibility remains (most recently advanced by the scholar Mark Goodacre, who has debated against mythicism with Dr. Richard Carrier) that this hypothetical document did not exist, and that the material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark got theere through other means (such as one author copying from another or a later editor inserting material attributed to Q into both GMatthew and GLuke; because despite karavan's claims, there is considerable evidence that our collections of Christians' scriptures was centrally edited into its more-or-less standard form in at least some way - wherefore the gospels are always in the same order from all of our manuscripts).

Even if it be conceded, however, that Q existed, its very lack of surviving copies (or even references to to it before scholars devised the hypothesis), means that we have no way of ascertaining its original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "Q", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess its reliability. Did it claim to have an author? was the claimed author regarded as a trustworthy person (rather than, for example, a person famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of Q copied into both gospels, or was there more that was not copied?

If the full text of Q was not copied into both gospels, then many other questions relating to its reliability arise. Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was writing the work as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth? conversely, did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was sincerely trying to recall what Jesus had said and provide evidence why we should trust eir efforts? Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was such an uncritical attributer of traditions to Jesus that we should regard with skepticism eir attribution of any tradition to Jesus (as with Papias and his claim that Jesus preached about talking grapes arguing about which of them should be eaten by YHWH's chosen)?

In order to put into better perspective the idea that the author of Q may have been writing Q as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth, I cite the existence within Islam of mawdu' (fabricated) ahadith, which, although regarded by Muslim scholars as fabricated, are and were nonetheless used by Islamic preachers and missionaries in order to make Muhammad seem to be a very kind man and for similar apologetic purposes. I am not saying, obviously, that the alleged surviving content of Q is united by making Jesus seem to be a very kind man, but the principle remains that the material within Q could have been fabricated by the author(s) of Q for similar reasons as guided the users and creators of mawdu' ahadith - evangelizing and preaching to Christians. And in the absence of surviving copies of Q in its entirety, we have no idea about whether a full manuscript would reveal these or even more scandalous things about its reliability.
I would say the following about the pre-gospel textual sources (by pre-gospel textual sources, I exclude the Pauline letters, because karavan and I agreed (if I understand correctly) to look at sources that were neither canonical gospels nor Pauline letters) for the gospels' authors which karavan cited:

I think that the following point deserve further consideration: why pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors arr not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death.

The root of the problem with relying upon pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors to prove anything about Jesus is that they do not survive, nor is it attested from patristic or similar sources.

Even if it be conceded, however, that pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors existed, their lack of surviving copies means that we have no way of ascertaining their original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess their reliability. Did they claim to have authors? were the claimed authors regarded as trustworthy persons (rather than, for example, people famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors copied into gospels, or was there more that was not copied?

If the full text of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors was not copied into both gospels, then many other questions relating to their reliability arise. Did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were writing the work as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth? conversely, did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were sincerely trying to recall what Jesus had said and provide evidence why we should trust eir efforts? Did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were such uncritical attributer of traditions to Jesus that we should regard with skepticism eir attribution of any tradition to Jesus (as with Papias and his claim that Jesus preached about talking grapes arguing about which of them should be eaten by YHWH's chosen)?

In order to put into better perspective the idea that the authors of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors may have been writing pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than as reflection of truth, I cite the existence within Islam of mawdu' (fabricated) ahadith, which, although regarded by Muslim scholars as fabricated, are and were nonetheless used by Islamic preachers and missionaries in order to make Muhammad seem to be a very kind man and for similar apologetic purposes. The material within pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors could have been fabricated by the author(s) of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors for similar reasons as guided the users and creators of mawdu' ahadith - evangelizing and preaching to Christians. And in the absence of surviving copies of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors in their entirety, we have no idea about whether a full manuscript would reveal these or even more scandalous things about their reliability.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by mlinssen »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:50 pm
mlinssen wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:19 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:34 am 4. Appealing to pre-gospel written texts which served as the basis for gospels is fundamentally problematic for the same reasons as I raised with Q.
How is that problematic? Can you give a pointer to your Q response?
Certainly.

Would you be kind enough to tell me whether the rest of my response was skilled and appropriate?
I'd love to be kind and today is a good day to be like that, but I just can't be bothered, sorry. I think you shouldn't bother either, life's too short and as we say in NL, one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer
ABuddhist wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:35 pm However, I think that the following points deserve further consideration: why Q is not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death (in order to address potential allegations that I am moving the goal-posts); and (2) sources (both primary and secondary) about Menandros the Greek King of Bactria (in order to refute karavan's suspicions that I am untrustworthy in my claims about Mahayana Buddhism).

1. Why Q is not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth

The root of the problem with relying upon Q to prove anything about Jesus is that it does not survive, nor is it attested from patristic or similar sources. Rather, it is a hypothetical document, dating from the 19th century, created in order to explain material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark. Therefore, the possibility remains (most recently advanced by the scholar Mark Goodacre, who has debated against mythicism with Dr. Richard Carrier) that this hypothetical document did not exist, and that the material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark got theere through other means (such as one author copying from another or a later editor inserting material attributed to Q into both GMatthew and GLuke; because despite karavan's claims, there is considerable evidence that our collections of Christians' scriptures was centrally edited into its more-or-less standard form in at least some way - wherefore the gospels are always in the same order from all of our manuscripts).
Q is a folly, yes. And non existant. And no one talks about it - back in them days
Even if it be conceded, however, that Q existed, its very lack of surviving copies (or even references to to it before scholars devised the hypothesis), means that we have no way of ascertaining its original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "Q", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess its reliability. Did it claim to have an author? was the claimed author regarded as a trustworthy person (rather than, for example, a person famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of Q copied into both gospels, or was there more that was not copied?
Jesus being fictional certainly is no fringe theory, it is the most plausible argument - but I digress
If the full text of Q was not copied into both gospels, then many other questions relating to its reliability arise. Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was writing the work as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth? conversely, did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was sincerely trying to recall what Jesus had said and provide evidence why we should trust eir efforts? Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was such an uncritical attributer of traditions to Jesus that we should regard with skepticism eir attribution of any tradition to Jesus (as with Papias and his claim that Jesus preached about talking grapes arguing about which of them should be eaten by YHWH's chosen)?
Now those are solid questions that no one wants to ask LOL - Q is used to fill the contradictory SP "solutions" of which none solve the great (dis)agreements betwen Luke and Matthew. I do, of course, but that's another story and not for the faint-herted or the short-sighted
In order to put into better perspective the idea that the author of Q may have been writing Q as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth, I cite the existence within Islam of mawdu' (fabricated) ahadith, which, although regarded by Muslim scholars as fabricated, are and were nonetheless used by Islamic preachers and missionaries in order to make Muhammad seem to be a very kind man and for similar apologetic purposes. I am not saying, obviously, that the alleged surviving content of Q is united by making Jesus seem to be a very kind man, but the principle remains that the material within Q could have been fabricated by the author(s) of Q for similar reasons as guided the users and creators of mawdu' ahadith - evangelizing and preaching to Christians. And in the absence of surviving copies of Q in its entirety, we have no idea about whether a full manuscript would reveal these or even more scandalous things about its reliability.

I would say the following about the pre-gospel textual sources (by pre-gospel textual sources, I exclude the Pauline letters, because karavan and I agreed (if I understand correctly) to look at sources that were neither canonical gospels nor Pauline letters) for the gospels' authors which karavan cited:

I think that the following point deserve further consideration: why pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors arr not, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death.
Now that's quite an extra. I thought you said something about pre-gospels period
The root of the problem with relying upon pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors to prove anything about Jesus is that they do not survive, nor is it attested from patristic or similar sources.
That actually may answer for the fact why they were there, is it not? They actually DID attest to a jesus but in a way that was not to the liking of the FF - which may very well a highly plausible reason for the fact that they don't exist (anymore)
Even if it be conceded, however, that pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors existed, their lack of surviving copies means that we have no way of ascertaining their original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess their reliability. Did they claim to have authors? were the claimed authors regarded as trustworthy persons (rather than, for example, people famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors copied into gospels, or was there more that was not copied?
Seriously? Do you expect an original story to claim that it tells the real deal unlike those that come after?
How would an original story have knowledge of the future?
If the full text of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors was not copied into both gospels, then many other questions relating to their reliability arise. Did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were writing the work as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth? conversely, did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were sincerely trying to recall what Jesus had said and provide evidence why we should trust eir efforts? Did the non-copied portions of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors indicate that their authors were such uncritical attributer of traditions to Jesus that we should regard with skepticism eir attribution of any tradition to Jesus (as with Papias and his claim that Jesus preached about talking grapes arguing about which of them should be eaten by YHWH's chosen)?
Same rationale that you use for Q, but not copying something in whole actually attests to the reliability of the copier more than the copied. Usually both, in any case
In order to put into better perspective the idea that the authors of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors may have been writing pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than as reflection of truth, I cite the existence within Islam of mawdu' (fabricated) ahadith, which, although regarded by Muslim scholars as fabricated, are and were nonetheless used by Islamic preachers and missionaries in order to make Muhammad seem to be a very kind man and for similar apologetic purposes. The material within pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors could have been fabricated by the author(s) of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors for similar reasons as guided the users and creators of mawdu' ahadith - evangelizing and preaching to Christians. And in the absence of surviving copies of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors in their entirety, we have no idea about whether a full manuscript would reveal these or even more scandalous things about their reliability.
How about Thomas?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by ABuddhist »

mlinssen wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:35 pm I'd love to be kind and today is a good day to be like that, but I just can't be bothered, sorry. I think you shouldn't bother either, life's too short and as we say in NL, one idiot can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer
That is quite all right; I just hope that I am not the idiot in your mind. :D
mlinssen wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:35 pm Now that's quite an extra. I thought you said something about pre-gospels period
Apologies for my sloppy cutting and pasting. :tomato: But my general desire was for surviving pre-gospel texts rather than hypothetical or non-surviving texts to be cited. After all, as my argument has run, when we have no surviving texts, relying upon them to support the accuracy of surviving texts is very problematic.
mlinssen wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:35 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:50 pm
Even if it be conceded, however, that pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors existed, their lack of surviving copies means that we have no way of ascertaining their original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess their reliability. Did they claim to have authors? were the claimed authors regarded as trustworthy persons (rather than, for example, people famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of pre-gospel textual sources for the gospels’ authors copied into gospels, or was there more that was not copied?
Seriously? Do you expect an original story to claim that it tells the real deal unlike those that come after?
How would an original story have knowledge of the future?
No; rather, I am talking about how assessing the reliability of such pre-gospel texts (and their derivative gospels) would be much easier (and less vulnerable to being dismissed as special pleading) if we were to have surviving texts which were (or maybe are) claimed to be such pre-gospel texts. You, I understand, assert that GThomas fulfils that role, but such a view is, I am aware, not mainstream (although I am certainly open to it as a possibility). GThomas, I must say, does not portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, contra karavan.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by mlinssen »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:29 pm That is quite all right; I just hope that I am not the idiot in your mind. :D
Not so far, no ;-)
After all, as my argument has run, when we have no surviving texts, relying upon them to support the accuracy of surviving texts is very problematic.
Undeniably so. We could extrapolate based on fragments, as in e.g. Marcion, but that is dangerous and risky enough as it is already. Q is a fantasy and a folly
You, I understand, assert that GThomas fulfils that role, but such a view is, I am aware, not mainstream (although I am certainly open to it as a possibility). GThomas, I must say, does not portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, contra karavan.
The essence of research and evolution is that any ideas are always not mainstream. If everyone would only share mainstream ideas we'd still be Neanderthals - or amoeba, for that matter.
There are quite a few who advance Thomasine originality though: Davies, Koester, Quispel - to name a few.
Indeed, Thomas portrays IS not even as much but a sock puppet. He could be sitting in his armchair for the duration of the text, as far as we know

Textual evidence demonstrates that the Thomas logia precede those of the NT. Not many acknowledge that, even less want that to be true - yet no one has come to my door and argued that I'm wrong. Which is fine really, my main interest lies in finishing the Commentary - but if the IS of Thomas is the source, then you know what my take is on a historical Jesus

I'm quite sure that we're not on topic anymore by the way :cheeky:
Post Reply