Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:Which criticisms of mine don't you understand?

Basically, all of them. Starting with your ridiculous suggestion that I have some obligation to find evidence that contradicts my claims. I do not believe there is any evidence that contradicts my claims. If other people think that such evidence exists, I am happy to discuss it.

neilgodfrey wrote: I think you are merely declaring you are right because you have divine wisdom and the correct interpretation of how science is the evidence for your faith

Here is another example, like your previous “wilfully evil” accusation, where it seems that you may actually mean the opposite of what you say. I can’t tell. I have no malice towards you, but I do despair at your complete failure to understand this whole topic.

neilgodfrey wrote: and someone like me is spiritually hard-hearted and therefore unable to understand.

I have never had any sympathy for religious fundamentalism, unlike you, so I lack your close familiarity with how fundamentalists use a concept such as “spiritually hard-hearted”. I am interpreting the text against the scientific hypothesis that Mark was Gnostic. That means that when Jesus accuses the disciples of being hard of heart, his target is ignorant people who cannot comprehend the natural vision of Gnosticism. I think that makes perfect sense. It is also a highly prescient analysis of how the church would subsequently deal with allegations of heresy, through violent blinkered false dogma. It remains relevant for analysis today of why people are prejudiced against a Gnostic reading of the Bible as astral allegory.

neilgodfrey wrote: All you have done in your reply is repeat your rationales for reading meanings into the original text without any analysis of the text that would lead you to justify those meanings.

And I simply reject that criticism. I have provided abundant analysis of the Biblical texts that justifies an astral reading. I can’t help it if you ignore my analysis or don’t understand it. There is little point going round in circles with you if you just ignore the main focus of the thread.

neilgodfrey wrote: You are not doing textual analysis of Mark 1 at all. If you want to know how textual analysis is done then just ask and I can point you to scholarly works that do it well. You have to show how the meanings in the text itself, and the structure and context of the images in the target text being analysed, support your interpretation. You are doing the complete opposite of that. You are finding all sorts of rationales outside the text to justify how you want to read the text.

You made the bizarre accusation that my use of a translation of ouranous as first heaven and then sky is “illegitimate”. I then proved that Ouranous does in fact mean both heaven and sky, in response to your bizarre accusation. Now, rather than accepting you were wrong and apologising, you are saying that this proof is “not textual analysis.” Whatever you say Neil.

neilgodfrey wrote: If I use that method I could prove that Casey's book is also about astrotheology!

That is stupid, as I have already explained, but you did not understand the explanation even though it was simple. I explained earlier why engaging with you on this topic is largely a waste of time, except to correct your errors, in view of the depth of your prejudice.

Thank you for your reasoned and courteous response, Robert! I can't resist your charming company so no wonder I'm always seeking to engage with you.

Let's just take the first point -- just one point at a time is enough, don't you think?

My point about finding evidence that is contrary to your hypothesis is simply the scientific method, I thought. It is the way we avoid confirmation bias. Yes?

That's what I meant. A hypothesis needs to be tested. The best test is to try to break it. It's about looking at evidence for and against our ideas and trying to be honest with both. That's what scholars are trained to do when they write research theses.

Do you really mean to say that you find such a process a "ridiculous" way of doing things?

Robert Tulip wrote:You made the bizarre accusation that my use of a translation of ouranous as first heaven and then sky is “illegitimate”. I then proved that Ouranous does in fact mean both heaven and sky, in response to your bizarre accusation. Now, rather than accepting you were wrong and apologising, you are saying that this proof is “not textual analysis.” Whatever you say Neil.

Peace, Robert. I bring tidings of peace. I wrote that given there is a different association or meaning in English between the words "heaven" and "sky" -- and the context here was the translation of the Greek word in Mark 1 and 6 -- we need to be careful and consistent in the translation we use. Sky and Heaven have somewhat different associations in English that may be lost in the original Greek. That was my point. I was asking for consistency.

neilgodfrey wrote:Why in your English rendering [of Mark 1] do you use two different words [heaven and sky] for the one Greek word that is translated as "heavens"? This leads me to suspect you are attempting to subtly shift a meaning or association by illegitimate means. Let's be consistent with our treatment of the Greek.

Translations need to consider what specific words mean in different contexts. Heavens to us in the context of looking to heavens in a daytime setting to register a communication with God does not necessarily connote images of stars, especially if the narrative is clearly set in daylight hours.

The question that needs to be asked is how we can establish what the author meant readers to associate with a word. You believe, I gather, that we can do that by (among other means no doubt) studying Hesiod's Theogany and the myth of the heaven mating with earth at night (though I don't recall if stars are there either) -- and I disagree. I believe the better method is to use texts we know definitely influenced the author and from which we can see the author copying.

Robert Tulip wrote:Starting with your ridiculous suggestion that I have some obligation to find evidence that contradicts my claims.

Robert, just to further expand on my point two comments above -- since you say this suggestion is 'ridiculous' and you do not understand it. . . .

For a while I toyed with the idea that the Gospel of Mark and then the other canonical gospels were all composed in the wake of the Bar Kochba war. I had read lots of evidence for this. It seemed to fit more coherently together than the claims for the earlier dating of the gospels. But I kept questioning it. I read everything I could on dating the gospels. In other words, I was always on the lookout for contrary evidence. I eventually modified my views significantly.

Ditto with the composition of Paul's letters. I came across some persuasive arguments for the letters attributed to Paul being composed closer to Marcion's time. But at the same time I kept a lookout for contrary evidence and that led me to read heaps of books and articles on Paul's letters -- why did others not agree with my view? were their reasons valid? what were their reasons? I eventually ditched the idea that I had entertained for some time.

Robert, was I being ridiculous for looking for evidence that contradicted or rendered suspect what I once thought were some very interesting and persuasive arguments?

Robert Tulip wrote:Commentary on Gospel Texts on Loaves and Fishes

Collating the text on the loaves and fishes from all four gospels there are about 2000 words, nearly 100 verses. The feeding of the multitude is the most prominent miracle in the Bible, appearing six times compared to three for the resurrection, but it is deeply mysterious. It is literally impossible, so its origins deserve careful analysis. Ruling out magic, the contesting hypotheses for the core meaning focus on Jesus as antitype for Moses or as cosmic allegory.

I don't see anywhere in your commentary the possibility that the feeding of the 5000 and the feeding of the 4000 were actual events.

How did you rule that out?

Mental flatliner wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Commentary on Gospel Texts on Loaves and Fishes

Collating the text on the loaves and fishes from all four gospels there are about 2000 words, nearly 100 verses. The feeding of the multitude is the most prominent miracle in the Bible, appearing six times compared to three for the resurrection, but it is deeply mysterious. It is literally impossible, so its origins deserve careful analysis. Ruling out magic, the contesting hypotheses for the core meaning focus on Jesus as antitype for Moses or as cosmic allegory.

I don't see anywhere in your commentary the possibility that the feeding of the 5000 and the feeding of the 4000 were actual events.

How did you rule that out?

Robert has a very black and white view of how the Bible should be interpreted. Since the story as it is told is a miracle and therefore impossible it therefore did not happen and nothing at all like it happened. Since he can think of no alternative explanation -- and anyone else who thinks they can will be wrong anyway as he will show if they care to engage him in discussion with an open mind receptive to the higher scientific truths of the cosmos -- his interpretation is therefore the only reasonable one.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Mental flatliner wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Commentary on Gospel Texts on Loaves and Fishes

Robert has a very black and white view of how the Bible should be interpreted. Since the story as it is told is a miracle and therefore impossible it therefore did not happen and nothing at all like it happened. Since he can think of no alternative explanation -- and anyone else who thinks they can will be wrong anyway as he will show if they care to engage him in discussion with an open mind receptive to the higher scientific truths of the cosmos -- his interpretation is therefore the only reasonable one.

The gospels don't state specifically that either of these events were miracles.

It's entirely possible that Jesus was taking the bread and fish that he had and generously donated them to the crowds (who were selfishly hoarding their own supplies) and encouraged them to share as well.

Faith need not be expressed in miracles. It can also be used to spark hope, generosity, sharing, celebration, and any number of other events.

At the end of the day, no matter how you interpret these stories, you never have the authority to read words into the text, whether you're denying they happened, errantly thinking these were one and the same event, errantly thinking they were similes written decades later, or (for Christians) reading into the text that Jesus magically multiplied the bread and fish.

(You have to remember that both of these events happened during the grain harvest--immediately after Passover, in April. Grains were in an overabundance at that time of year, and fishing season had just wound down. It's not a stretch of any kind to think that all the pilgrims coming home from Passover had supplies of their own and shared on these days. Of course the gospels don't say that either. They just said all were fed.)

Mental flatliner wrote:
The gospels don't state specifically that either of these events were miracles.

It's entirely possible that Jesus was taking the bread and fish that he had and generously donated them to the crowds (who were selfishly hoarding their own supplies) and encouraged them to share as well.

Faith need not be expressed in miracles. It can also be used to spark hope, generosity, sharing, celebration, and any number of other events.

At the end of the day, no matter how you interpret these stories, you never have the authority to read words into the text, whether you're denying they happened, errantly thinking these were one and the same event, errantly thinking they were similes written decades later, or (for Christians) reading into the text that Jesus magically multiplied the bread and fish.

(You have to remember that both of these events happened during the grain harvest--immediately after Passover, in April. Grains were in an overabundance at that time of year, and fishing season had just wound down. It's not a stretch of any kind to think that all the pilgrims coming home from Passover had supplies of their own and shared on these days. Of course the gospels don't say that either. They just said all were fed.)

It's quite possible to imagine any alternative to what we read. We are always entitled to reject the clear and direct meaning of the text and substitute our own story in its place to suit our whims. We are even allowed in a free society to play tennis without a net, or let every player in a football or basketball game have their own ball.

That way we can remove all the miracles from the gospels and imagine all sorts of other things happening that are not there in the text and produce something that looks quite reasonable to us that will prove any point we want to make.

Would certainly save a lot of disputes and arguments and eliminate so many pesky questions that arise from the texts as we have them.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Mental flatliner wrote:
The gospels don't state specifically that either of these events were miracles.

It's entirely possible that Jesus was taking the bread and fish that he had and generously donated them to the crowds (who were selfishly hoarding their own supplies) and encouraged them to share as well.

Faith need not be expressed in miracles. It can also be used to spark hope, generosity, sharing, celebration, and any number of other events.

At the end of the day, no matter how you interpret these stories, you never have the authority to read words into the text, whether you're denying they happened, errantly thinking these were one and the same event, errantly thinking they were similes written decades later, or (for Christians) reading into the text that Jesus magically multiplied the bread and fish.

(You have to remember that both of these events happened during the grain harvest--immediately after Passover, in April. Grains were in an overabundance at that time of year, and fishing season had just wound down. It's not a stretch of any kind to think that all the pilgrims coming home from Passover had supplies of their own and shared on these days. Of course the gospels don't say that either. They just said all were fed.)

It's quite possible to imagine any alternative to what we read. We are always entitled to reject the clear and direct meaning of the text and substitute our own story in its place to suit our whims. We are even allowed in a free society to play tennis without a net, or let every player in a football or basketball game have their own ball.

That way we can remove all the miracles from the gospels and imagine all sorts of other things happening that are not there in the text and produce something that looks quite reasonable to us that will prove any point we want to make.

Would certainly save a lot of disputes and arguments and eliminate so many pesky questions that arise from the texts as we have them.

I don't remove miracles from the Bible. I have respect for the following command given in two places:

"Anyone who adds to the writings in this book or subtracts from the writings in this book are cursed."

I extend these words to all historical documents. I add to none of them, and I subtract from none of them. I have no such authority, and neither do you.

Robert has a very black and white view of how the Bible should be interpreted. Since the story as it is told is a miracle and therefore impossible it therefore did not happen and nothing at all like it happened. Since he can think of no alternative explanation -- and anyone else who thinks they can will be wrong anyway as he will show if they care to engage him in discussion with an open mind receptive to the higher scientific truths of the cosmos -- his interpretation is therefore the only reasonable one.

Thanks Neil, I know there is an element of mockery in your summary, but it is worth unpicking nonetheless.

a miracle and therefore impossible:

Yes, that is an important first principle regarding scientific rigor. The laws of physics are absolute, as the method by which God=Nature wields omnipotence, so any claims of events that are contrary to the laws of physics should be understood as allegory or error. That is black and white, as night follows day. The probability of miracles occurring can be rejected as vanishingly small.

“and nothing at all like it happened:

No, that does not follow. Many Jews were crucified by Romans, and these events were synthesised into the 'one for all' idea of Christ Jesus. Poor people did receive food as charity, as a sign of generosity, care and love, and it would be wrong to say that such gifts are nothing at all like the loaves and fishes distribution, except for the miraculous aspect.

he can think of no alternative explanation:

The allegory of loaves and fishes standing for the new cosmic axis of Virgo (sign of loaves) and Pisces (sign of fishes) that the year entered at the time of Christ due to precession is massively explanatory as a sign of universal creative abundance, symbolised by the core Christological mediatory idea of Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega of the observed cycle of the cosmos. The failure of theology to engage with this simple natural explanation is a sign of the pathology of traditional faith, of the alienation of corrupt supernatural tradition away from scientific reality into political fantasy. I don’t say the cosmic meaning is the only point of significance in the parable. However, observation of precession of the equinox is a major central explanation regarding the Gnostic origins of Christianity. Its neglect stands as a gaping hole at the centre of interpretation of the story. Until the cosmic meaning of this parable is recognised and discussed Christian theology will lack traction and credibility.

anyone else who thinks they can will be wrong anyway as he will show if they care to engage him in discussion with an open mind receptive to the higher scientific truths of the cosmos:

Yes, that is true. Scientific truth is not optional, it is objective. Since Newton science has understood the main objective facts of the motion of the earth, with small refinements by Einstein. Precession is indeed a “higher scientific truth of the cosmos”, and was understood as such by ancient Gnostics with their theory of Aeons or Ages. They saw the effects, even if they lacked the theory to explain the physical causes. Seeing these effects is like seeing the hands move on a clock. Anyone can tell the time from a clock without knowing how a quartz crystal drives the mechanism. Anyone who thinks I am wrong is standing against this basic set of objective facts, which have been severely neglected due to the depraved state of theology.

his interpretation is therefore the only reasonable one:

Going through Mark’s text against the heuristic principle that he is encoding Gnostic secrets is entirely reasonable. This is the method that Elaine Pagels used in The Gnostic Paul to analyse the Epistles. It is abundantly productive and coherent. The hypothesis that Orthodoxy evolved as a corrupt degeneration from Gnosticism is highly controversial, entirely excluded from polite society, and banished to the outer darkness of the internet, such as here. But as Paul meant at 1 Cor 1:18, the knowledge of the cosmos is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of nature.