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?