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

[neilgodfrey]

Did a mythicist murder k's mother?

[karavan]

"Also incapable of identifying interpolations in Antiquities 18.3.3 and incapable of discovering that the Torah is a composite text."

Nah, that's just wrong. We DO have alternate attested versions of Antiquities 18.3.3, such as from Michael the Syrian and one other person, more closely fitting the partial interpolation model. As for the Torah, there's literally just no comparison here LOL. There is OVERWHELMING evidence, from an abundance of doublets to numerous other criteria, for the composite nature of that text. And there are multiple examples of this phenomena from such texts from the ANE. There's literally no such evidence for Galatians 1:18-19. Sorry dude, but manuscript evidence IS RELEVANT. You seem to be finely cherry picking examples to dismiss the very *relevance* of the concept of the fact that we have actual relevant manuscripts here. There ARE cases where the internal literary evidence is relevant, but, y'know, there needs to be actual internal evidence if you're going to dismiss the manuscript EVIDENCE. But you seem to be literally saying manuscripts are irrelevant, in principle, when they disconfirm mythicism.

"That defense would make the originality hypothesis just an assumption, rather than "obvious.""

Well, it IS obvious per all the known facts. There are often even basic criteria for claiming an interpolation, such as the text flowing or making more sense in the absence of those verses. But that kinda blusters with Galatians, since it makes far less sense for Paul to say "I assure you I am not lying" in v. 20 as following his mundane claim that he visited Damascus, as opposed to his claim that he met and discussed with both Peter and James, the brother of the Lord. So even the most basic criteria for identifying an interpolation collapses. The fact is that the text DOESN'T make much sense if you take out these verses, and the manuscripts unanimously attest to them.

We need to be absolutely, 100% clear about this: there isn't the slightest additional inkling of evidence to suggest Gal. 1:18-19 is an interpolation than the two verses prior. It's solely an assumption, based on absolutely nothing, made for no other reason to circularly ease the mass of times mythicism is disconfirmed by the evidence.

Look dude, I can do the same thing. Every time the Gospels contradict each other, interpolation! Therefore the Gospels have no contradictions. That line of reasoning is just about as logical as the Neil Godfrey's approach, where literally Galatians 1:18-19; 4:4; Romans 1:3, and the last supper description in 1 Cor. 11 all must be interpolations for you know what reason.

[Peter Kirby]

We DO have alternate attested versions of Antiquities 18.3.3, such as from Michael the Syrian and one other person, more closely fitting the partial interpolation model.

The reference here was to "all manuscript evidence."

there needs to be actual internal evidence if you're going to dismiss the manuscript EVIDENCE. But you seem to be literally saying manuscripts are irrelevant, in principle

Agreement of New Testament manuscripts does not make the underlying text "obvious."

Well, it IS obvious per all the known facts

It is a plausible assumption, based on the known facts listed - i.e., that it's in all the manuscripts. It is not "obvious."

There are often even basic criteria for claiming an interpolation, such as the text flowing or making more sense in the absence of those verses. But that kinda blusters with Galatians, since it makes far less sense for Paul to say "I assure you I am not lying" in v. 20 as following his mundane claim that he visited Damascus, as opposed to his claim that he met and discussed with both Peter and James, the brother of the Lord. So even the most basic criteria for identifying an interpolation collapses. The fact is that the text DOESN'T make much sense if you take out these verses, and the manuscripts unanimously attest to them.

Now you're getting somewhere. It's reasonable to consider the question of the authenticity of the verses, even though they're in all the manuscripts, because the pattern of manuscript attestation alone does not make the conclusion "obvious."

[ABuddhist]

"What is the argument for the "obvious originality of Gal. 1:18-19"?"

Literally all manuscript evidence bruh. Remember, manuscripts are capable of identifying interpolations in both the end of Mark and the adulteress pericope. Plus, the burden of proof is on the one claiming interpolation. It's very, VERY obvious that the suggestion of interpolation is to preserve mythicism. But the fact of the matter is that there is no more reason to think Gal. 1:18-19 interpolated than to think Gal. 1:16-17 interpolated. The whole position is just circular and arbitrary, in other words.

____________________

"Your assertion that Hong Xiuquan as a preacher founding a religion proves that Christianity was founded by a preaching Jesus is evidence of your poor understanding of my arguments. I am not suggesting that Christianity was not founded by a preacher or group of preachers, but only that Jesus was not a preacher upon the Earth; rather, other people who knew him, possibly including his brother James, were the first preachers based upon posthumous visions that they had had of Jesus - like Hong Xuiquan with his visions of Jesus. Evidence for this is that the earliest Christian literature never refers to Jesus as preacher."

Your reference to Hong obviously just reconfirms the model where you actually need someone to begin a religion or new sect or something. Nope, not a "group of preachers" is supported by that example but, once again, time after time, a literal actual person. By the way, how can people have known him and be a brother to him if he wasn't on Earth? ROFL. Your reference to the "earliest Christian literature" is a red herring, given the fact that you blatantly ignore the earliest Christian literature when it rejects the crazy space Jesus theory. That's all there is to it, wishful thinking. By the way, you seem to have some sort of idea of James as the first Christian in your wild scenario, sort of debunked by the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor. 15 where James is listed almost last.

"You are profoundly ignorant of of Buddhism"

That's actually true, I've never studied Buddhism. Which is now your best argument against me ROFL. Anyways, what's your claim? You obviously concede that Buddhism began with a historical founder, so what's the relevance of this other figure? Of course people can believe in deities that are 'out there' so to speak, but that's not how movements are created dude. There wasn't, one day, this group of people who had no belief in Buddhism whatsoever and suddenly began to have visions and suddenly began to be this alternate form of Buddhists.

ABuddhist has cited himself to prove that some random dude on reddit once insulted Chris Hansen. Because that magically proves something, ROFL. Point 6 right there is a total red herring. I'm vastly more well-read on the relevant subject matter than you are dude, I know all about this topic. If you want to produce evidence against Jesus the apocalyptic prophet, go ahead, because we BOTH know about the evidence that he was: i.e. that he was making prophecies about the apocalypse, LOL.

ABuddhist, why are you utterly wasting my time and diverting to freaking Buddhism? I'm going to repeat this again: this whole point is one giant association fallacy. You're not going to be proving literally anything about the origins of Christianity if your evidence doesn't come from the origins of Christianity.

1. I said that "I am not suggesting that Christianity was not founded by a preacher or group of preachers" - explicitly leaving open the possibility that a single preacher (albeit not Jesus!) founded Christianity. Your unwillingness to recognize this is further evidence that you do not really understand or engage with the arguments that you address.

2. I did not say that James was definitively the founding preacher within Christianity, but merely raised it as a possibility. It is true that the creed that you quote places James as not near the first in learning about Jesus's resurrection, but given the competition between Paul and James (and perhaps other pillars within Christian faith), to assume without further evidence that it represents an honest statement of events rather than a statement of faith that was modified in response to sectarian disputes.

3. You keep not understanding that I am not a mythicist. Even though I am aware of arguments against James being Jesus's brother, I have no problem with such a thing being true. What I have a problem with is the assumption that Jesus was a preacher. Furthermore, Hong Xuiquan is proof (not simply evidence but proof) that a religion can involve spiritual brotherhood granted through visions. Such a brotherhood is compatible even with an Earthly Jesus.

4. I discuss Buddhism because of the following facts.

a. Amitabha Buddha's cult reveals that a celestial saviour figure never believed to be upon Earth can attract vcast devotion.

b. Scholarship about the origins of Mahayana Buddhism has strongly suggested that cults surrounding Amitabha Buddha and similar beings arose when Buddhist monks, absorbed in meditation and guided by scriptures, had visions of Buddhas whom they became convinced were saviour figures. The parallels between those situations and early Christianity (in which, as mythicists, mainstream biblical scholarship, and others concede was filled with pious men assembling, studying scriptures, having visions, and praying) seems striking to me.

5. "ABuddhist has cited himself to prove that some random dude on reddit once insulted Chris Hansen." Well, you are welcome to accuse me of lying if you want - or you could ask Neil if he remembers reading the thread when it was up. But my point was not that "some random dude on reddit once insulted Chris Hansen" but that Chris Hansen was insulted for daring to go against the biblical mainstream by saying that e thought that Josephus had never mentioned Jesus Christ. Chris Hansen also condemned eir insulter for only relying upon O'Neill's summaries of the arguments rather than upon better scholarship - which you seem reluctant to avoid doing.

6. "I'm vastly more well-read on the relevant subject matter than you are dude, I know all about this topic. If you want to produce evidence against Jesus the apocalyptic prophet, go ahead, because we BOTH know about the evidence that he was: i.e. that he was making prophecies about the apocalypse, LOL."

a. Why should I believe your claims when you have revealed throughout this discussion (as far as I know) only that you love to insult people and that you love to cite Tim O'Neill?

b. Again, evidence is not proof. You must prove to me that apocalyptic prophecies attributed to Jesus were spoken by Jesus while he preached upon the Earth rather than being some combination of (1) visionaries' "words from Jesus" such as found in Revelation to John that were later attributed to an earthly Jesus - which is not incompatible with a preaching Jesus, because a preaching Jesus could have preached about other things, as other scholars have suggested; (2) later Christian preachers' apocalyptic prophecies that were later attributed to Jesus in order to give to them more authority - which is not incompatible with a preaching Jesus, because a preaching Jesus could have preached about other things, as other scholars have suggested (a similar thing happened within Mahayana Buddhism, as various rescensions of the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 lines reveals, so that a mere monk's sermon became attributed to Gautama Buddha); or (3) the gospels' authors created the apocalyptic prophecies and attribued them to Jesus in order to address their communities' needs - which is not incompatible with a preaching Jesus, because a preaching Jesus could have preached about other things, as other scholars have suggested.

[MrMacSon]

... I am reminded of a similar rhetorical style's being used within the reddit community r/academicbiblical by a user (whose name I forget) against the user Chrissy_H_ for daring to say that it was not outside the pale of mainstream biblical scholarship to believe that both passages from Josephus referring to Jesus were interpolations. 4 things stand out about the debate for me.

1. The user Chrissy_H_ described emself as an ardent historicist.

2. The user Chrissy_H_'s opponent argued that only mythicists’ efforts ensure that mythicists’ and non-mythicists’ arguments that both passages in Josephus were interpolations receive any notability instead of being completely condemned and ignored.

3. The user Chrissy_H_ replied by saying that “Why would I bother engaging with the arguments of someone who has so little to say that they couldn’t be bothered to even read the scholarship, and are just repeating Tim O’Neill, whom I’ve already have tussled with elsewhere? You don’t offer a single thing worth actually thinking about.”

4. r/academicbiblical, even though it is no friend to mythicism, deleted the entire discussion rather than accepting that attempted refutations of the model that both passages mentioning Jesus Christ in Josephus as interpolations based upon insults and citing Tim O'Neill were legitimate.

I am not saying that karavan is the user whom the user Chrissy_H_ was debating with; I am only saying that karavan and the user whom the user Chrissy_H_ was debating with share a style of debating that even mainstream biblical scholars in r/academicbiblical reject, for which reason I feel vindicated in ignoring karavan's arguments until e abandons eir rudeness (and cites scholarship beyond O'Neill!).

Was this post part of that exchange ?

.
The only other evidence of martyrdom of those who knew Jesus, in the first century, is Josephus book 20, and I don't think this is authentic, following a growing number of scholars including (I. Prchlík, N. P. L. Allen, Carrier, Price, G. Twelftree, J. Efron, T. Rajak, K. Olson, etc.).

Funnily enough, even if we accept the Josephus passage as authentic, it hilariously contradicts Christian sources on James' death. Eusebius says James died in 69 CE, while Josephus has him die in 62. In Josephus he is stoned (and it does not say he was stoned for his faith, thus not a martyr), meanwhile others say he was thrown from the top of the Temple, or beaten to death with clubs. So, if Josephus is authentic, he proves that Christians fabricated martyrdom stories and were myth makers. It proves Christians were willing to just make up martyrdom stories.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... &context=3
.

[ABuddhist]

... I am reminded of a similar rhetorical style's being used within the reddit community r/academicbiblical by a user (whose name I forget) against the user Chrissy_H_ for daring to say that it was not outside the pale of mainstream biblical scholarship to believe that both passages from Josephus referring to Jesus were interpolations. 4 things stand out about the debate for me.

1. The user Chrissy_H_ described emself as an ardent historicist.

2. The user Chrissy_H_'s opponent argued that only mythicists’ efforts ensure that mythicists’ and non-mythicists’ arguments that both passages in Josephus were interpolations receive any notability instead of being completely condemned and ignored.

3. The user Chrissy_H_ replied by saying that “Why would I bother engaging with the arguments of someone who has so little to say that they couldn’t be bothered to even read the scholarship, and are just repeating Tim O’Neill, whom I’ve already have tussled with elsewhere? You don’t offer a single thing worth actually thinking about.”

4. r/academicbiblical, even though it is no friend to mythicism, deleted the entire discussion rather than accepting that attempted refutations of the model that both passages mentioning Jesus Christ in Josephus as interpolations based upon insults and citing Tim O'Neill were legitimate.

I am not saying that karavan is the user whom the user Chrissy_H_ was debating with; I am only saying that karavan and the user whom the user Chrissy_H_ was debating with share a style of debating that even mainstream biblical scholars in r/academicbiblical reject, for which reason I feel vindicated in ignoring karavan's arguments until e abandons eir rudeness (and cites scholarship beyond O'Neill!).

Was this post part of that exchange ?

.
The only other evidence of martyrdom of those who knew Jesus, in the first century, is Josephus book 20, and I don't think this is authentic, following a growing number of scholars including (I. Prchlík, N. P. L. Allen, Carrier, Price, G. Twelftree, J. Efron, T. Rajak, K. Olson, etc.).

Funnily enough, even if we accept the Josephus passage as authentic, it hilariously contradicts Christian sources on James' death. Eusebius says James died in 69 CE, while Josephus has him die in 62. In Josephus he is stoned (and it does not say he was stoned for his faith, thus not a martyr), meanwhile others say he was thrown from the top of the Temple, or beaten to death with clubs. So, if Josephus is authentic, he proves that Christians fabricated martyrdom stories and were myth makers. It proves Christians were willing to just make up martyrdom stories.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... &context=3
.

I believe so, yes.

[ABuddhist]

1. You wish dude LOL. 2. Not needed to be proven at all. We can grant that a mythicist need not outright lie to themselves that Paul's Jesus was celestial. But if you can't even have that, you can't be an honest mythicist. Because you *know* Paul knew Jesus' own disciples and family. Which means Jesus existed. Plus Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, therefore we have someone who was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote of him. And unless you claim Jesus was a "CHTHONIC GOD" (LOL), YES, if a god doesn't come to Earth, ever, that god is celestial. 3. Nah that's not a concession at all, and the fact that you think it's a concession in literally any way whatsoever, that it is not an outright logical mathematical impossibility that mythicism is wrong, proves just how blatantly desperate you are. It's also not impossible that the moon is made of green cheese and we've all been brainwashed by a mass of aliens into thinking otherwise. It's also not impossible that Zeus is real. You've failed to prove that mythicism is any more of a reality than freakin Zeus dude, if your only point is that it isn't strictly impossible, LOL. Please bro, <<<actual evidence for your claim is needed.>>>

1. Again, you keep claiming that I have provided no evidence - but what you mean is that I have not provided evidence that you deem to be acceptable.

2. I am not a mythicist. I have no problem accepting that Paul knew Jesus's family, but I am saying that the evidence is less certain than you claim it to be.

3. Of all things that you would object to, I am shocked that you would object to the concept of Chthonic gods.

4. As evidence of a god who never came to Earth but cannot be described as celestial, I cite Tartarus, the god who lives within and created Tartarus - a hell-realm beneath the Earth. The god Tartarus never came to Earth in several greek mythographers' accounts, but Taratarus, being so strongly associated with the underworld (where he lives) cannot be described as a a celestial deity.

[MrMacSon]

"What is the argument for the "obvious originality of Gal. 1:18-19"?"

Literally all manuscript evidence bruh. Remember, manuscripts are capable of identifying interpolations in both the end of Mark and the adulteress pericope. Plus, the burden of proof is on the one claiming interpolation. It's very, VERY obvious that the suggestion of interpolation is to preserve mythicism. But the fact of the matter is that there is no more reason to think Gal. 1:18-19 interpolated than to think Gal. 1:16-17 interpolated. The whole position is just circular and arbitrary, in other words.

Manuscripts are not capable of doing what you claim: they do not have comprehension, interpretive or cognitive skills to do what you claim.

Sure comparison of different manuscripts by papyrologists can show significant interpolations such as the end of Mark, but there's a lot more nuance to rule in or ruling out lesser, subtle changes to texts.

Your assertion that, "The whole "position" is just circular and arbitrary" is itself circular and arbitrary.

[karavan]

"The reference here was to "all manuscript evidence.""

Nah, we're obviously talking about the fact that if there's a reasonable amount of attestation, interpolations tend to be identified somewhere in that attestation. And it's a fact that partial interpolation is indicated by the known attestation of 18.3.3, which was supposed to be your counterexample. If you are responding to the idea that ALL MANUSCRIPTS will unanimously identify an interpolation, you are responding to the biggest strawman I've seen all month. There is unequivocally the presence of attestation of 18.3.3 suggesting modification.

"Agreement of New Testament manuscripts does not make the underlying text "obvious.""

It certainly makes it evidenced by relevant physical evidence which cannot be dismissed as a matter of arbitrary assumptions. The basic principle is obvious: if all the manuscript evidence says one thing, and you have zero evidence or real reason otherwise, there is no relevant discussion of an interpolation. At that stage, it's just arbitrary wishful thinking. Manuscript evidence beats literary analysis 98% of the time, which is why literary bases for interpolation or invented by some scholar here or there just as quickly as they are dismissed, whereas direct manuscript evidences of interpolation tend to be remarkably good predictors for interpolation. (*And* a remarkably good predictor for authenticity.) The manuscript evidence is undoubtedly the stronger evidence, and it shows. You need rather real literary analysis to suggest otherwise. But the thing is, we have absolutely <<<zero>>> such evidence for Galatians 1:18-19. And I already just demonstrated that the text blatantly makes a solid degree less sense if you took it out. Like, that's *really bad* for the thesis. The very first, most basic criteria for identifying an interpolation already collapses with this verse.

Kindly answer this question: Do you have any actual evidence for interpolation in Galatians 1:18-19?


_______


ABuddhist, you're outright spamming me at this point LOL. I mean, this is literally all loonery. You "leaving the possibility open" without evidence that one person founded Christianity without Jesus isn't evidence. And your claim of Paul's bias is IRRELEVANT, the creed in 1 Cor 15 is PRE-PAULINE and NOT composed by him and puts James last.

"Scholarship about the origins of Mahayana Buddhism has strongly suggested that cults surrounding Amitabha Buddha and similar beings arose when Buddhist monks, absorbed in meditation and guided by scriptures, had visions of Buddhas whom they became convinced were saviour figures."

Sorry dude, you think I'm going to just accept it when YOU tell me that scholarship says this or that? Big phat citation please. Otherwise, didn't happen LOL.

Yup, got it, some random dude insulted Chris Hansen once upon a time. Great example of you latching onto nothing, when Chris Hansen is on tape saying that he was suppressed in his personal life, not by "hIsToRiCtTs" but by freaking mythicists.

Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? Of course he was, it's in literally all the "earliest Christian literature". The movement began as apocalyptic, clear as day, and Jesus was its founder, and there are several attributions of Jesus saying precisely those things. I don't need to disconfirm literally any alternative you pull out of your arse. If you want to make an alternative suggestion, the burden of proof is on YOU LOL given the fact that literally ALL the earliest Christian attestation, right back to Paul himself who directly knew the originals, were apocalyptic.

Still NO EVIDENCE for any of your claims, just you pulling stuff out of your arse.



__________


@MrMacSon

"Manuscripts are not capable of doing what you claim: they do not have comprehension, interpretive or cognitive skills to do what you claim."

The most ridiculous dismissal of physical evidence disconfirming your presumptions I've ever seen, god damn dude LOL.

"but there's a lot more nuance to rule in or ruling out lesser, subtle changes to texts."

And what "NuAnCe" do mythicists have to offer for Galatians 1:18-19; 4:4, Romans 1:3, and 1 Cor 11? Absolutely freaking none. Just that it debunks them, therefore interpolated.

"Your assertion that, "The whole "position" is just circular and arbitrary" is itself circular and arbitrary."

Nah dude, get real, if someone claims that these passages are interpolations solely because it refutes their ridiculous space sperm in heaven theory, that's circular and arbitrary.

[MrMacSon]

... We DO have alternate attested versions of Antiquities 18.3.3, such as from Michael the Syrian1 and one other person,2 more closely fitting the partial interpolation model.

1 So, what's the significance of the alternate attested versions of Antiquities 18.3.3 from Michael the Syrian?

2 Who's the one other person?

As for the Torah, there's literally just no comparison here LOL. There is OVERWHELMING evidence, from an abundance of doublets to numerous other criteria, for the composite nature of that text. And there are multiple examples of this phenomena from such texts from the ANE.

Yep.

There's literally no such evidence for Galatians 1:18-19 ...

... there isn't the slightest additional inkling of evidence to suggest Gal. 1:18-19 is an interpolation than the two verses prior. It's solely an assumption, based on absolutely nothing, made for no other reason to circularly ease the mass of times mythicism is disconfirmed by the evidence.
.

That's not true.