Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

ficino wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlTi95hun34&app=desktop
TTA Podcast 198: The Question of Christ

• • Published on Dec 22, 2014

Just finished listening. This is a worthwhile discussion, thanks for the link.

Cool. I found it fascinating.

Robert M. Price is a card! They were talking about lore as passed down in an oral culture, and the moderator brought up claims made by William Lane Craig about the accuracy of memory in an oral culture. Price said,"these apologists like William Lane Craig are representatives of an anal culture."

He he. Yeah I recall that bit. Quite an orator is Price.


I was surprised to hear a brief mention of the Constantine invention theory during the question "Did Josephus write the entire NT"?

It's around the 1:13:00 mark.

• HOST: DID JOSEPHUS WROTE THE ENTIRE NT because what ..... Rome wanted to control the masses ?
  
  {Laughs ....}
  
  PRICE?: "puppet masters yeah .... ???"
  
  CARRIER?: "it was a trick by the Emperor Titus to pacify the jews . They invented the christian religion wholesale. Josephus wrote the NT"
  
  WHO1? "... or maybe it was Emperor Constantine. It might have been the Emperor Constantine too."
  
  WHO2? .... "Yeah that too"
  
  CARRIER: "Is it Atwill who's saying that. Atwill is the one who has wriiten the book.

CARRIER (? IDK) drilled Joseph Atwill as a kook, a crank and worse ...

• Atwill??? .... windfall on stock market in the 90's .... is a bit of a kook is an understatement ... buying PR for his book ... tin foil hat crank ... when caught out he gets conspiracy theory and angry and villificatory .... so u can't have a reasonable discussion with the guy ... fanatics buy in ... cult followers outraged ... and ... he doesn't read Greek

[/list][/list]



LC

cienfuegos wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,

So what is your methodology about source criticism? Can you answer that question?

sure, I have previously many times:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

• Core principles for determining reliability
  
  includes ....
  
  Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The NT is not original on the basis of mass copy/paste from the Greek LXX.


LC

This is relevant to the Gospels:

wiki wrote: Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself."[8]

the problem is we cannot satisfactorily answer #1, #2 and #3...or can we? If you believe we can please do so.

to cienfuegos,

bernard wrote:

b) "Mark" forced some damage control about Jesus' actions in the temple:
Mk 11:17 "... he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,'? But you have made it a `den of robbers.'""
The quote comes from the combination of two different sources (therefore very unlikely to have been spoken by Jesus):

I don't see how this at all is "damage control." The fact that the quote comes from sources in the LXX should once again provide you with a hint that you fail to see: this is an allegory.

Allegory, allegory, allegory. That's an obsession.
In that case, "Mark" had to do some cut and paste on the LXX in order to justify Jesus' deeds.
That shows that Jesus' actions do not fit any passage of the LXX according to the author. And the LXX passages on their own are not even close to describe Jesus' disturbance. If it was an allegory, then "Mark" would have Jesus' action exactly matching a passage of the LXX. That's not the case.
"Mark" forced some damage control about Jesus' actions in the temple:
Mk 11:17 "... he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,'? But you have made it a `den of robbers.'""
The quote comes from the combination of two different sources (therefore very unlikely to have been spoken by Jesus):
"My house [the temple] will be called a house of prayer for all nations" is part of Isa 56:7. However "den of robbers" is from Jer 7:11 "Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? ..."
But here, the robbers are not the merchants in the temple; they are Jewish sinners who did horrible deeds (including stealing) outside and then felt "safe" because they would visit the temple afterwards:
Jer 7:9-10 "Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"--safe to do all these detestable things? [no mention here of merchant's activities in the temple! No mention in the "Jesus' disturbance" of Jewish criminals/sinners visiting the holy place for atonement!]"

bernard wrote:

Soon after the narration of the ruckus, "Mark" wrote "And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching." (11:18).
"Mark" avoided to say these scribes and chief priests began to look for way to have Jesus killed because of the "disturbance".

How do you know that they began to look at a way to have Jesus killed because of the Temple disturbance? Our earliest Gospel doesn't say that, he says for blasphemy:
14:55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

14:63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Mark 14:55 says clearly that they were looking for a reason to kill him. They knew about the Temple disturbance and that seems to not have been a reason to kill him. (I think, by the way, that Mark has followed Jewish Wars 6.5.3 here for his plot, and in that story Jesus was brought before the priests and the Roman governor for his Temple disturbances but not found to have committed any offense worthy of killing, but they did flog him.)

That's a point I was making: the disturbance, with the belief that Jesus was believed to be the future "King", was more than enough to have Jesus executed (and would make Jesus crucified because he was a troublemaker, that "Mark" had many reasons to avoid). Since, through research, I found that Jesus was neither a teacher or a parable sayers, it is obvious "Mark" lied about the reason why the top Jews then wanted to destroy him (11:18).
And according to Paul's epistles, Jesus was very unlikely to declare himself the Son of God in front of anybody.
Process of elimination. Then "Mark" never wrote again about the disturbance.

This is all more of the same. You have explained it all so that it is convincing to you. You are fitting the evidence into your theory and not allowing consideration for other explanations.

What other explanations? "King of the Jews" fits well about what precedes, from Jericho (son of David), to the shouts by some Jews somewhere before entering Jerusalem, etc ... And it goes against "Mark" addressing a mainly Gentile audience, which would not like Jesus as "King of the Jews".

You are very assiduously avoiding source criticism here. "even if nothing is known...doesn't mean...not true." No, it means we have no way to evaluate him as a reliable source. Therefore, conclusions based on this source can only be at best tenuous if they are not attested elsewhere. "truth among lies," how do you know what's true and what's not? If Mark wrote an elaborate allegory, how do you filter "truth" from that? The author has the ultimate artistic license to fashion his story however he wants.

From the website you posted about source criticism, I quote:
Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author."
An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.
This what I did, every step of the way.
For you, a text is either all true or all false: that's very rarely true.
And I never evaluated gMark as a reliable source, far from that. Everything in it has to be checked for authenticity, from all kind of angles. And I kept relatively very little, just a backbone.
But in the case of "Mark", he did not have the luxury to shape everything he wanted. Why? because of eyewitness' testimony which "Mark" had to include in his gospel, and at the same time, counteract because it did not fit his Christian agenda, even destroy it. The counteractions are the keys about sorting out the material in gMark.

How would anyone beyond a handful of followers know that he existed?

That would be enough. For example, Jewish Christians going to Jerusalem for a feast could get in contact with the eyewitnesses of the Church of Jerusalem and gather up info about Jesus. And then tell the Christians of their home town at their return. Basic info about Jesus would propagate quickly in this fashion all over the Christian world.

Where you did a good job of presenting actual evidence was your list of Paul's references to an earthly Jesus. That's evidence.

Coming from a mythicist, that's a heck of a compliment. Thanks.

Cordially, Bernard

to cienfuegos,

Well, Bernard, there isn't really a point to continue this. You refuse to follow standard historical methods and concocted a methodology that really seems to serve the purpose of creating an impenetrable web of defense.

I followed standard historical method, do you like it or not. Of course because of the nature of the texts potentially containing authentic bits, you have to be very skeptical and analyse carefully everything.
On thing I do, as much as it is possible, is to answer:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
You would see that if you read my website.
But I think the approach of an investigator working on a cold case crime is also very appropriate and at least complementary.
BTW, from wiki "historical method", I like that:
McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."
What wrong with my methodology? What's wrong about having an impenetrable web of defense? I think that's the sign showing I have engineered a very valid and highly defensible (from any sides) reconstruction.

I want to note one misconstruence: when I used the term "I believe" it was not meant to be taken as a statement of faith but as a signal that I was stating a hypothesis, putting forward my current reading of the evidence based on our discussion and what I have learned previously. Either there is some communication gap, or I am unclear, or you are not very honest about your reading of my positions, whatever the case is, it is too laborious to continue trying to keep the record straight. It was a fun Christmas discussion.

You have to admit your understanding of the beginning of Christianity rests on a set of beliefs, as you candidly admitted. So now you say you were stating hypothesis. Well that does not sound like well evidenced reasoning.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,

Well, Bernard, there isn't really a point to continue this. You refuse to follow standard historical methods and concocted a methodology that really seems to serve the purpose of creating an impenetrable web of defense.

I followed standard historical method, do you like it or not. Of course because of the nature of the texts potentially containing authentic bits, you have to be very skeptical and analyse carefully everything.
On thing I do, as much as it is possible, is to answer:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

Answer those questions here then.

bernard wrote: BTW, from wiki "historical method", I like that:
McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."
What wrong with my methodology? What's wrong about having an impenetrable web of defense? I think that's the sign showing I have engineered a very valid and highly defensible (from any sides) reconstruction.

I don't mean impenetrable in the sense that it has no weaknesses. I mean impenetrable in the sense that it has layers and layers of your own hunches passed off as evidence. You have created a web to support your own belief.

You are naive about sources. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? You can only guess. What was the author's purpose? You can only guess. When was it written? You can only guess. On what primary sources was it based? You can only guess. No one knows the answers to these questions, all of which makes using the Gospel of Mark for historical data an unsound practice, which you won't admit.

I want to note one misconstruence: when I used the term "I believe" it was not meant to be taken as a statement of faith but as a signal that I was stating a hypothesis, putting forward my current reading of the evidence based on our discussion and what I have learned previously. Either there is some communication gap, or I am unclear, or you are not very honest about your reading of my positions, whatever the case is, it is too laborious to continue trying to keep the record straight. It was a fun Christmas discussion.

You have to admit your understanding of the beginning of Christianity rests on a set of beliefs, as you candidly admitted. So now you say you were stating hypothesis. Well that does not sound like well evidenced reasoning.

Cordially, Bernard[/quote]

Ok. As I said, there isn't really a point to continuing this.

cienfuegos wrote:Ok. As I said, there isn't really a point to continuing this.

To enable any dialogue, or further discussions, we need a common core to build from.

Without this, everyone is all over the board trying to chop off the ankles of others.


Unfortunately, I think your historical foundation lacks most cultural and physical anthropology. The NT is evidence, even if only a reflection of what later people believed was happening.


Do you agree baptism started before the Jesus character is supposed to have died?

Do you agree John the Baptist lived and died before the Jesus character died?

Do you agree the origins of this movement existed a few decades before Paul's community wrote?

Maybe you could try and create history for a change instead of trying to destroy it?

Why don't you give a brief paragraph or two of what you think life was like say in Nazareth 25 CE, and then politics in the temple at 25CE.

outhouse wrote:Maybe you could try and create history for a change instead of trying to destroy it?

Why don't you give a brief paragraph or two of what you think life was like say in Nazareth 25 CE, and then politics in the temple at 25CE.

Create history?

That's not the point. The point is to reconstruct what actually happened in the past. I am interested in the origins of Christianity, which did start as fascination with Jesus and the idea that one person could set in motion a movement that had so much influence on the history of the world. My investigation led me to where I never intended: the questioning of the actual existence of Jesus.

As to the homework assignment...what do you hope to gain by that? Is it possible for you to turn down your antagonism? I think I have attempted to be fair with you.

cienfuegos wrote: The point is to reconstruct what actually happened in the past. I am interested in the origins of Christianity, which did start as fascination with Jesus and the idea that one person could set in motion a movement that had so much influence on the history of the world. My investigation led me to where I never intended: the questioning of the actual existence of Jesus.

A healthy curiousity. If you can question the existence of Jesus then it follows that you can question the integrity (means, motive, opportunity) of the "church organisation" who have preserved (and perhaps partly forged) the woeful state of the extant evidence. You better be careful or outhouse will put you on ignore lol.


LC