Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:35 pm
Whatever else karavan may have done during the time when e maked eir latest posting within this thread (and being upon my "ignore list", I cannot tell), I note that e has not provided to me through PM a single pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death. If karavan now admits that there is not even one pre-gospel Christian text explicitly claiming that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet upon the Earth before his death (with the extremely dubious exception of Q), then e is welcomed to inform me about this concession through a PM. If such a PM be politely worded, then I would consider reading through karavan's posts in order to read what e says about other matters.
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.
2. Sources (both Primary and Secondary) about Menandros the Greek King of Bactria
The Milinda Pañha ('Questions of Milinda') is a Buddhist text, written in Pali, describing a discussion between a Buddhist monk and a person whom historians have agreed is meant to be the Greek king Menandros of Bactria, during which he converts to Buddhism and in the end becomes a Buddhist monk noted for his spiritual achievements. A freely available English version, translated by the famous scholar of Pali T. W. Rhys Davids, can be readed here: https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm. Within the text, the king is described as ruling over the Yonakas in a city that is called Sâgala.
King of the city of Sâgala in India, Milinda [the Pali form of the name Menander] by name, learned, eloquent, wise, and able; and a faithful observer, and that at the right time, of all the various acts of devotion and ceremony enjoined by his own sacred hymns concerning things past, present, and to come. — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation from the Pali by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890.
After meeting with the Buddhist monk Nagasena, Menander converted to Buddhism.
May the venerable Nâgasena accept me as a supporter of the faith, as a true convert from to-day onwards as long as life shall last! — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890
Menander also became a Buddhist monk renowned for his spiritual achievements.
And afterwards, taking delight in the wisdom of the Elder, he handed over his kingdom to his son, and abandoning the household life for the houseless state, grew great in insight, and himself attained to Arahatship! — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890
Lest Pali Indian sources be deemed untrustworthy, they receive some confirmation in Plutarch's Moralia 28.6: "But when one Menander, who had reigned graciously over the Bactrians, died afterwards in the camp, the cities indeed by common consent celebrated his funerals; but coming to a contest about his relics, they were difficultly at last brought to this agreement, that his ashes being distributed, everyone should carry away an equal share, and they should all erect monuments to him."
This division of the ashes of a person and erecting monuments over said ashes is standard for Buddhist monastics who are deemed to have achieved extraordinary things (including arhatship), and Georgios T. Halkias, writing in "When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures" in "Religions and Trade" Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West", edited by Peter Wick and Volker Rabens, accepted Plutarch's words as confirming the account in the Indian "The Questions of King Milinda".
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.
2. Sources (both Primary and Secondary) about Menandros the Greek King of Bactria
The Milinda Pañha ('Questions of Milinda') is a Buddhist text, written in Pali, describing a discussion between a Buddhist monk and a person whom historians have agreed is meant to be the Greek king Menandros of Bactria, during which he converts to Buddhism and in the end becomes a Buddhist monk noted for his spiritual achievements. A freely available English version, translated by the famous scholar of Pali T. W. Rhys Davids, can be readed here: https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm. Within the text, the king is described as ruling over the Yonakas in a city that is called Sâgala.
King of the city of Sâgala in India, Milinda [the Pali form of the name Menander] by name, learned, eloquent, wise, and able; and a faithful observer, and that at the right time, of all the various acts of devotion and ceremony enjoined by his own sacred hymns concerning things past, present, and to come. — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation from the Pali by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890.
After meeting with the Buddhist monk Nagasena, Menander converted to Buddhism.
May the venerable Nâgasena accept me as a supporter of the faith, as a true convert from to-day onwards as long as life shall last! — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890
Menander also became a Buddhist monk renowned for his spiritual achievements.
And afterwards, taking delight in the wisdom of the Elder, he handed over his kingdom to his son, and abandoning the household life for the houseless state, grew great in insight, and himself attained to Arahatship! — The Questions of King Milinda, Translation by T. W. Rhys Davids, 1890
Lest Pali Indian sources be deemed untrustworthy, they receive some confirmation in Plutarch's Moralia 28.6: "But when one Menander, who had reigned graciously over the Bactrians, died afterwards in the camp, the cities indeed by common consent celebrated his funerals; but coming to a contest about his relics, they were difficultly at last brought to this agreement, that his ashes being distributed, everyone should carry away an equal share, and they should all erect monuments to him."
This division of the ashes of a person and erecting monuments over said ashes is standard for Buddhist monastics who are deemed to have achieved extraordinary things (including arhatship), and Georgios T. Halkias, writing in "When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures" in "Religions and Trade" Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange between East and West", edited by Peter Wick and Volker Rabens, accepted Plutarch's words as confirming the account in the Indian "The Questions of King Milinda".