Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
D. Spencer Hines
Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came not to send peace, but a sword."
Mark 12:17 -- "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him."
Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
contributors.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> In alt.history.british J A <a...@re.com> wrote:
>>Jesus was basically a pacifist socialist...
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Nonsense...
>
>Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
>came not to send peace, but a sword."
But Jesus is more often called the Prince of Peace than the
Prince of the Sword. It would be interesting to hear your
exegesis of that.
>Mark 12:17 -- "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar
>the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
>And they marvelled at him."
Why do you think they marvelled? This was obviously a clever
escape from a tricky question about the payment of taxes. He
avoided saying anything that could be construed as seditious. But
I fail to see what it contributes to our interpretation of
Jesus's message as either socialist or non-socialist, since both
economic systems involve payment of taxes to the state. You
really must explain yourself better and not just pull irrelevant
quotes from the New Testament.
>Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
>search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
>contributors.
Some biblical quotations in support of that statement would be
useful. Another challenge for you.
James
Clunem calce ferivi
La N
"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6gh6f41raur5bj72o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:36:45 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
> <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
>>Nonsense...
>>
>>Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
>>came not to send peace, but a sword."
>
> But Jesus is more often called the Prince of Peace than the
> Prince of the Sword. It would be interesting to hear your
> exegesis of that.
>
As per usual, Hines does not understand the use of metaphor, even in the
Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
And, btw, in my church attending youth, we would have something called
"sword drills". The preacher would call out a chapter and verse in the
Bible, and the verse one to find it would stand up and read it out loud to
the congregation.
- nilita
te...@tiglath.net
> Nonsense...
>
> Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
> came not to send peace, but a sword."
>
> Mark 12:17 -- "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar
> the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
> And they marvelled at him."
>
> Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
> search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
> contributors.
I must have missed that bible passage...
Matthew 19:21 -- 'Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell
your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven. Then come, follow me."'
te...@tiglath.net
> "James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6gh6f41raur5bj72o...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:36:45 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
> >>Nonsense...
>
> >>Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
> >>came not to send peace, but a sword."
>
> > But Jesus is more often called the Prince of Peace than the
> > Prince of the Sword. It would be interesting to hear your
> > exegesis of that.
>
> As per usual, Hines does not understand the use of metaphor, even in the
> Bible:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
>
It's a far fetched explanation, guided not by sense but by a
compelling urgency to dispel any thought of Jesus as a violent
person. ANY violence, therefore, has to be directed to evil and even
then just as a metaphor for purification.
Holy crap. A sword is a sword, unless the metaphor is very clear,
not that convoluted a cop out.
The truth is that a reader routinely finds in the bible has a surfeit
of nonsensical, contradictory, and plainly wrong passages. As it
should be when one reads the writing of anonymous, superstitious sheep
herders that lived 2000-2500 years ago.
James Hogg
wrote:
The simplest explanation of this pasage is that Jesus didn't
actually speak those words. They could have been attributed to
him much later by whoever wrote this part of the gospel of
Matthew. The giveaway is the bit that comes later: "And he who
does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me"
(note the Hinesian use of initial capitals, sign of the true
narcissist).
Like most prophecies, this was written after the event (unless
you believe that Jesus knew in advance that he was going to be
crucified).
James
La N
I personally don't take the Bible literally, haven't for years. I agree
with the above summaries. However, I was raised in a Christian congregation
that viewed Jesus as a pacifist. As such, my mind won't wrap around
considering him in any other manner, most especially as a warmongerer. If
so, I would turn in my Christian card.
- nilita
Martin
The 'Jesus Diaries' never have turned up, have they?
He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
As for him knowing he was going to get the chop (or the nailing, whatever?),
even if you take the gospels as being the ... er, 'gospel truth', J of
Nazereth put up no defence (despite encouragement from Pilate), and appeared
to have been in deep shock before and during his execution...
The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit political
conditions centuries later, as were his teachings and advice on moral
issues - this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt. I am sure
he did exist even so, but not as a deity, merely an all-too-human
troublemaker, who paid the price for irritating the Jewish authorities and
Rome alike.
te...@tiglath.net
There are no solidly authentic historical references to Jesus outside
the gospels. He may well have not existed as the best argument for
his existence is that if he was an invention the inventor(s) would
have done a much better job matching him to prophecy. If we accept
that he existed, that was the easier part since there is no evidence
that the germinal Jesus was or did what the gospels describe.
Never forget that the gospels, despite the misleading names, are
nothing but manufacturer's claims from anonymous sources writing about
a man they've never met, decades after his death, who, he and his
disciples and any primary source, would have spoken a different
language.
Now think of the enormous weight Christians have trusted to that
slender thread... Not wise.
The gospels are not history. They are advocacy with a very clear
audience in mind: the unwashed masses of the Roman Easter empire,
which at that time wallowed in extreme poverty and misery. A
brilliant future promised, but only after death -- sorry. Still...
times were so bad the idea flourished.
D. Spencer Hines
importance of attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his
ENTERPRISE.
Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
-----------------------------
Version: KJV
Matthew 25
1. Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2. And five
of them were wise, and five [were] foolish.
3. They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with
them: 4. But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8. And the
foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are
gone out. 9. But the wise answered, saying, [Not so]; lest there be
not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy
for yourselves.
10. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that
were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open
to us. 12. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you
not.
13. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
the Son of man cometh.
14. For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far
country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them
his goods.
15. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another
one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway
took his journey.
16. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with
the same, and made [them] other five talents. 17. And likewise he that
[had received] two, he also gained other two.
18. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid
his lord's money.
19. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth
with them. 20. And so he that had received five talents came and
brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me
five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21. His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful
servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make
thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou
deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other
talents beside them.
23. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I
knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not
sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25. And I was
afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou
hast [that is] thine.
26. His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and
slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and
gather where I have not strawed: 27. Thou oughtest therefore to
have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming
I should have received mine own with usury.
28. Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto
him which hath ten talents. 29. For unto every one that hath shall be
given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall
be taken away even that which he hath.
30. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
------------------------
Jesus and Donald Trump -- both Capitalists -- who knew when to fire an
unprofitable assistant.
Praise The Lord...
And pass the biscuits.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
See also:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_talent> -- [Unsourced]
D. Spencer Hines
Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:620adae9-1d53-4c05...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters...
D. Spencer Hines
religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature,
and the noble rank he holds among the works of God... Let it
be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes
and parliaments."
-- John Adams (Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)
Reference: The Most Nearly Perfect Solution, Guinness, 3-26;
and John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, Thompson, 54.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:R7MIk.154$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
> Egregious Nonsense.
>
> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
Tacitus is a primary source for the existence of Jesus?
Tell all oh great one...
I mean, Tacitus wasn't actually born until 51AD...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:R7MIk.154$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
> Egregious Nonsense.
>
> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
Tacitus is a primary source for the existence of Jesus?
John Briggs
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:R7MIk.154$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>> Egregious Nonsense.
>>
>> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
>
> Tacitus is a primary source for the existence of Jesus?
>
> Tell all oh great one...
>
> I mean, Tacitus wasn't actually born until 51AD...
More likely 56 AD. He might be a primary source for the existence of
Christians (Nero blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome) but he was only 8
years old at the time...
--
John Briggs
te...@tiglath.net
> Egregious Nonsense.
>
> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
Misleading and misinformed.
Josephus and Tacitus are the starters and the desserts -- There is no
more.
Mr. Hines confuses references to Jesus, with references to Christians
which might allude to their head figure.
First, both Tacitus and Josephus wrote decades after Jesus' death,
Tacitus almost a century later. They are the best there is, and it's
not very good at all.
Secondly, while they are non-Christian sources, it is most likely that
their information came from Christian sources, not independent
research for which they would have no motive.
Third. Tacitus reference to Jesus, and Josephus two references to
Jesus are believed to be later interpolations for very good reasons.
In fact much of what Josephus wrote, not only about Jesus, is in great
doubt.
NEVER forget, that while we owe an enormous debt to many pious monks
who transcribed the classical treasures from degradable papyrus to
durable parchment, at the same time, in religious text, they made all
sort of interpolations, when they felt that it would clarify or
buttress some doctrinal aspect. That process lasted at least FIFTEEN
CENTURIES.
"Tacitus"'s passage even gets Pilate's title wrong and calls him a
procurator. He was the Prefect of Judea. Most people remain ignorant
of the distinction. Tacitus was a superbly educated Roman, who would
be unlikely to make such mistake
Because Tacitus's passage is rather negative that is taken as proof
that no Christian interpolator would ever have written it. Imagine
that. The BEST educate men of the time, unable to contrive such a
scheme...
Even if Tacitus' passage was genuine it's hardly conclusive evidence.
He could have just been retelling what the Christians were saying
about their savior. THEY were the READERSHIP of the Gospel Writers,
i.e., the original Kool-Aid drinkers.
Mr. Hines is deeply ignorant of this subject. He should do well to
put down his bible when he engages in historical inquiries. That he
learned about Jesus on his mothers knee is not a good reason to throw
historical rigor out of the window when examining Jesus
historicity.
The historicity of Jesus is a question that has been so thoroughly
examined that qualifies for the negative evidence principle: we can
say with confidence that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, much
as a germinal itinerant preacher we have existed, who was chosen as
the central character of the gospels.
Mr. Hines is always crowing about historical facts. I invite him to
present any historical data about Jesus that can be considered a
historical fact. Unless he can do so, believing in the existence of
Jesus is no different than believing in the Tooth Fairy.
Let us see.
D. Spencer Hines
Ayres. "I was only eight years old at the time."
I never claimed Tacitus was a PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life
of Jesus Christ.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pSMIk.100888$ix....@newsfe10.ams2...
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> failed the challenge to provide any
evidence for the following wild hypothesis:
>Jesus Christ was a smart religious leader who understood the
>importance of attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his
>ENTERPRISE.
>
>Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
So one again I ask: where are your biblical quotations to back up
this claim?
James
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrine and sentiments of
>religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature,
>and the noble rank he holds among the works of God... Let it
>be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes
>and parliaments."
>
>-- John Adams (Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)
>
>Reference: The Most Nearly Perfect Solution, Guinness, 3-26;
>and John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, Thompson, 54.
So the only quotation you have found, after hours of searching,
is not from Jesus but from John Adams.
'Nuff said
James
John Briggs
> Sounds like Barack Obama concerning the domestic terrorist William
> Ayres. "I was only eight years old at the time."
>
> I never claimed Tacitus was a PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life
> of Jesus Christ.
So, what were you claiming?
--
John Briggs
William Black
> Sounds like Barack Obama concerning the domestic terrorist William
> Ayres. "I was only eight years old at the time."
Well.
Seeing as Ayres never served a day in jail we must assume he's as much a
terrorist as Menachim Begin was after he went 'legit'.
If nobody was ever allowed to assocciate with terrorists then half the
world's leaders would be 'off limits' to US politicians.
> I never claimed Tacitus was a PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life
> of Jesus Christ.
Oh yes you bloody did.
Liar.
John Briggs
The title of later Governors was Procurator, and then Legate at the time of
Tacitus.
--
John Briggs
James Hogg
Since the OP has never been known to respond to a critical
question, I must as usual assume the task of trying to explain
what he meant. Someone has to do the dirty work of Hinesian
exegesis.
Tiglath wrote a complete and grammatically correct declarative
sentence in his second language: "There are no solidly authentic
historical references to Jesus outside the gospels."
Native speaker DSH managed some sentence fragments in response:
"Egregious Nonsense. Josephus and Tacitus -- just for
starters..."
From this one must conclude that DSH finds that Tacitus and
Josephus provide solidly authentic historical references to
Jesus.
DSH went on to explain that he never claimed Tacitus to be a
PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life of Jesus Christ, but he
did imply that the reference in Tacitus to Christ is nevertheless
solidly authentic history.
I tend to agree. I see no reason to doubt that Jesus existed and
was the man behind the "most mischievous superstition" that
Tacitus describes, but I have difficulty finding evidence that
Jesus anticipated Milton Friedman, and here DSH is, as usual, of
no assistance whatever.
James
te...@tiglath.net
> Sounds like Barack Obama concerning the domestic terrorist William
> Ayres. "I was only eight years old at the time."
>
> I never claimed Tacitus was a PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life
> of Jesus Christ.
In other words, Mr. Hines has NOTHING to support his comeback of
"egregious nonsense" when I said that there are no solidly authentic
historical references to Jesus outside the gospels.
Or better said, there are NO reliable non-Christian sources for the
historicity of Jesus.
Both Tacitus and Josephus sources are RIDDLED WITH DOUBT.
In other words, when it comes to HISTORICAL FACTS about the existence
of Jesus of Nazareth, Mr. Hines remains empty handed.
No reliable historical facts, no warranted belief, Mr. Hines. That
is a central tenet of historiography.
I understand Mr. Hines has his own private reasons to engage in
magical thinking stemming from the religious training he was subjected
to at a tender age, which affected his power of reasoning for life,
like with countless other millions of children (a legal form of child
abuse), but he should keep all that at arm's length when discussing
the historicity of a personage.
> > More likely 56 AD. He might be a primary source for the existence of
> > Christians (Nero blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome) but he was
> > only 8 years old at the time...
> > --
He wrote the Annals around AD 115. And IF the passage is genuine,
which is in doubt, Tacitus is merely recounting what the Christians
were saying about their leader, which they themselves read in their
own sect propaganda-soon-to-be-scripture.
It is plausible that the same editor used the same passage in two
different Roman works. It appears in Tacitus Histories and in
Sulpicius Severus's Chronica (400 AD).
The principal point, though, is that we can't know. If Tacitus' is as
good as it gets, then we have to suspend judgment, INSTEAD OF engaging
in firm, intense belief. That is what a historian does.
Believing in Jesus for not historical reasons is something else and an
endless thread, but doing so for HISTORICAL reasons is a very short
thread for honest people and historians.
La N
There are none. The above DSH rant is typical of that of a denizen of The
4th Floor just prior to the administration of clozapine. Truly.
Jayzus Murphy. It's a wacky day on Usenet.
and, btw, HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all the Canadians!
- nilita
James Hogg
<martin147...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
>"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Like most prophecies, this was written after the event (unless
>> you believe that Jesus knew in advance that he was going to be
>> crucified).
>
>The 'Jesus Diaries' never have turned up, have they?
>He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
Actually, I'm just putting the finishing touches to a manuscript
that I think is fairly convincing. In it Jesus exposes lots of
dirty laundry. I just have to consult Mel Gibson on some of the
finer details of the Aramaic. (He owes me one for my help with
the Scots in Braveheart.)
I'm hoping that I will be able to sell the Jesus Diaries to
someone like Dick Fuld (now what would the Reverend Spooner
have made of a name like that?) so that he can donate it to the
ever-willing suckers at Yale to add to their growing library of
forgeries.
James
te...@tiglath.net
wrote:
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:ljNIk.160$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>
> > Sounds like Barack Obama concerning the domestic terrorist William
> > Ayres. "I was only eight years old at the time."
>
> Well.
>
> Seeing as Ayres never served a day in jail we must assume he's as much a
> terrorist as Menachim Begin was after he went 'legit'.
>
> If nobody was ever allowed to assocciate with terrorists then half the
> world's leaders would be 'off limits' to US politicians.
>
> > I never claimed Tacitus was a PRIMARY, CONTEMPORARY source on the life
> > of Jesus Christ.
>
> Oh yes you bloody did.
>
> Liar.
>
Let's see...
I wrote:
"There are no solidly authentic historical references to Jesus outside
the gospels."
Mr. Hines responded:
"Egregious Nonsense. Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters."
Black is right. It is quite clear that Mr. Hines believes that
Josephus and Tacitus are solid sources for the historicity of Jesus.
But only the appetizers...
He knows of others too, apparently. So far unnamed, but they are the
meat and potatoes of the question -- the main course, if you will.
Could you please let us have the whole list, Mr. Hines?
We must make clear that the context is whether Jesus existed or not.
Therefore a solid reference is a reference that would confirm beyond
reasonable doubt the Jesus existed.
Why Mr. Hines does believe that Tacitus or Josephus confirm such a
thing, I would like to know.
For that level of confidence, usually, the reference must be by a
primary contemporary, or near contemporary source. Or a convergence
of several sources like in the case of Socrates. This is seldom
achieved by a sole source unless it's of established reliability.
Tacitus is a model historian by the standard of the times. He and
Thucydides are an ancient historian's dream, but unfortunately rare
ones in a time when telling a good story trumped accuracy and the
tedium of listing dates and sources.
Not by the nature of the historian but the nature of the passage, and
the distant in time from the event described, Tacitus reference is
hardly independent confirmation of the gospels. It's rather a report
of Christian accounts of the time. And it may well not be genuine.
To call anything Josephus wrote "solidly authentic" is something no
historian, professional or amateur, would ever do, unless he is an
idiot.
Mr. Hines lacks the skepticism a good historian need to remind him
constantly to mistrust the allure of great story tellers and the tacit
confidence they inspire.
Great story tellers and eloquent politicians should meet the same test
as the rest. Lest we fall pray to any charlatan that saunters by.
This advice is irrelevant to Mr. Hines, who falls pray to politicians
much less than eloquent.
D. Spencer Hines
Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came not to send peace, but a sword."
Mark 12:17 -- "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him."
Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
contributors.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> In alt.history.british J A <a...@re.com> wrote:
>>Jesus was basically a pacifist socialist...
D. Spencer Hines
Yes...
Jesus Christ was a smart religious leader who understood the
importance of attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his
ENTERPRISE.
Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
-----------------------------
Version: KJV
Matthew 25
Praise The Lord...
And pass the biscuits.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Billzz
news:19ef4dc4-55d5-4bcc...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Let's see...
I wrote:
Mr. Hines responded:
-------------------------------------------------------
My newsreader seems to have lost the ability for left-hand carets, so above
the line are the finely hewn words of temp6, and below the line the roughly
chopped mangles of billzz...
I am posting from alt.war.vietnam, which seems to be one of the groups that
Commander (in my plonkfile) Hines spreads his words of wisdom-less to.
Fortunately I only get to see the replies, which usually increase my wisdom,
just as the words of the Commander subtracts from the sum of human
knowledge.
Anyway, I was thinking that the subject of Jesus and Vietnam were pretty far
apart, when I remembered my own stay in the Mekong Delta, and also
remembered the day that we ran an operation right by a Cao Dai temple, and
one of the monks(?) came out and offered to show us around.
The first thing that I noticed, on the outside, was the brilliant colors of
red, orange, blue, green, gold, which made me think that they used whatever
paint they could find. The monk explained that they made it as colorful as
they could, so that it would be pleasing in the eye of God. Inside they had
an altar, which had representations of their holy people - or saints - it
wasn't clear. They had a statue where they could, or if not that, then a
painting, and if not that then a photograph of the person. Lined up in an
arc were some fourteen (I've forgotten) representations, including Buddha,
Moses, Allah (don't ask) Jesus, and ending with Louis Pasteur. You read
right, Louis Pasteur. It seems that the Mekong Delta (think of a big swamp)
has a lot of diseases, and the French taught them about the role of Louis
Pasteur in fighting disease, so voila! He's a saint. A very interesting
place, and this post actually connects Jesus to Vietnam. Now you know the
rest of the story.
J Antero
> Jesus Christ was a smart religious leader who understood the importance of
> attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his ENTERPRISE.
>
> Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
If that were true, and if his healing and raising the dead powers were true,
then he could have made all the money he wanted, and gotten all the
credibility he wanted, by treating Romans and putting on carnival side
shows in Rome.
J Antero
various research methods to determine which of the New Testament's sayings
were actually attributable to "Jesus".
They came up with 15 sayings. Among them are those below.
Regarding violence and conflict.
Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate
you,
And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.
Regarding wealth and justice.
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed are ye poor:
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn
not thou away.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall
be filled.
J Antero
drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797
reads:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the
laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselman; and as the said states never
have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Moslem nation, it
is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions
shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries."
J Antero
> Egregious Nonsense.
>
> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
The references to jebus in Josephus are thought to be a later phony
additions by christian propagandists.
from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
"Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64
The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists
over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as
the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of
Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily,
appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English.
"
Tacitus only mentions "christus" in passing when discussing the big fire in
rome during the reign of Nero.
If you you read the "Persian Expedition", you'll find Xenophon mentioning
certain feats performed by Greek gods in various locales they were passing
through.
Didi they exist, too?
Dennis
> As per usual, Hines does not understand the use of metaphor, even in
> the Bible:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
That seems pretty obvious to me.
> And, btw, in my church attending youth, we would have something called
> "sword drills". The preacher would call out a chapter and verse in
> the Bible, and the verse one to find it would stand up and read it out
> loud to the congregation.
That must be from the reference to "the sword of the Spirit, that is,
God's Word." Ephesians 6:17. Interesting to call it "sword drills". Did
you have fencing championships? :-)
Dennis
Dennis
>> So one again I ask: where are your biblical quotations to back up
>> this claim?
>
> There are none. The above DSH rant is typical of that of a denizen of
> The 4th Floor just prior to the administration of clozapine. Truly.
Is that what you call the Schizophrenics Ward in Canada/
> Jayzus Murphy. It's a wacky day on Usenet.
When isn't it?
> and, btw, HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all the Canadians!
??? I didn't think you celebrated Thanksgiving. The last I heard, we
hadn't occupied you like we did Japan. [That's a joke, BTW. :-) ]
Dennis
Dennis
> The first thing that I noticed, on the outside, was the brilliant
> colors of red, orange, blue, green, gold, which made me think that
> they used whatever paint they could find. The monk explained that
> they made it as colorful as they could, so that it would be pleasing
> in the eye of God. Inside they had an altar, which had
> representations of their holy people - or saints - it wasn't clear.
> They had a statue where they could, or if not that, then a painting,
> and if not that then a photograph of the person. Lined up in an arc
> were some fourteen (I've forgotten) representations, including Buddha,
> Moses, Allah (don't ask) Jesus, and ending with Louis Pasteur. You
> read right, Louis Pasteur. It seems that the Mekong Delta (think of a
> big swamp) has a lot of diseases, and the French taught them about the
> role of Louis Pasteur in fighting disease, so voila! He's a saint. A
> very interesting place, and this post actually connects Jesus to
> Vietnam. Now you know the rest of the story.
Fascinating!
I remember a story from Greco-Roman antiquity about a shrine that had
Jesus along with Appolonius of Tyana and three other sages.
I also saw an exhibit from Haiti with a voodoo shrine that had, along
with other things, a Darth Vader helmet. The moral of the story is, some
religions are a lot more eclectic and open-minded than others.
Dennis
Larry Swain
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:39:53 -0700 (PDT), te...@tiglath.net
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Oct 13, 10:14 am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>news:6gh6f41raur5bj72o...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:36:45 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
>>>>><pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense...
>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
>>>>>>came not to send peace, but a sword."
>>>>
>>>>>Prince of the Sword. It would be interesting to hear your
>>>>>exegesis of that.
>>>>
>>>>As per usual, Hines does not understand the use of metaphor, even in the
>>>>Bible:
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
>>>>
>>>
>>>compelling urgency to dispel any thought of Jesus as a violent
>>>person. ANY violence, therefore, has to be directed to evil and even
>>>then just as a metaphor for purification.
>>>
>>>Holy crap. A sword is a sword, unless the metaphor is very clear,
>>>not that convoluted a cop out.
>>>
>>>The truth is that a reader routinely finds in the bible has a surfeit
>>>of nonsensical, contradictory, and plainly wrong passages. As it
>>>should be when one reads the writing of anonymous, superstitious sheep
>>>herders that lived 2000-2500 years ago.
>>
>>The simplest explanation of this pasage is that Jesus didn't
>>actually speak those words. They could have been attributed to
>>him much later by whoever wrote this part of the gospel of
>>Matthew. The giveaway is the bit that comes later: "And he who
>>does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me"
>>(note the Hinesian use of initial capitals, sign of the true
>>narcissist).
>>
>>Like most prophecies, this was written after the event (unless
>>you believe that Jesus knew in advance that he was going to be
>>crucified).
>>
>
>
> with the above summaries. However, I was raised in a Christian congregation
> that viewed Jesus as a pacifist. As such, my mind won't wrap around
> considering him in any other manner, most especially as a warmongerer. If
> so, I would turn in my Christian card.
>
> - nilita
>
>
Even the interpretation of Jesus as promoting a kind of violence in this
age does not mean he was advocating war or even insurrection.
Larry Swain
> In the the mid 1980's, a group of scholars called The Jesus Seminar used
> various research methods to determine which of the New Testament's sayings
> were actually attributable to "Jesus".
You should know however that The Jesus Seminar is very far from the last
word on the subject, even among liberal scholars.
Larry Swain
That actually wouldn't take much, certainly not a miracle, considering
Pilate's usual reaction to preachers and others drawing large crowds.
Pilate wasn't a nice fellow, though the gospels work hard to exonerate him.
>
> The 'Jesus Diaries' never have turned up, have they?
> He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
>
> As for him knowing he was going to get the chop (or the nailing, whatever?),
> even if you take the gospels as being the ... er, 'gospel truth', J of
> Nazereth put up no defence (despite encouragement from Pilate), and appeared
> to have been in deep shock before and during his execution...
Which doesn't mean that he didn't know or at least strongly suspect that
he'd run afoul of the Sadducees who would find a way to dispense with
him, especially as clearing the Temple precincts was probably not an act
of passion in the moment but premeditated, and an act surely to get the
attention of the authorities.
>
> The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit political
> conditions centuries later,
No.
as were his teachings and advice on moral
> issues -
Wrong there too.
this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
historians think differently.
I am sure
> he did exist even so, but not as a deity,
sure
merely an all-too-human
> troublemaker,
So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed
things that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other
writings of the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I don't
see how you can reconcile your two claims.
who paid the price for irritating the Jewish authorities and
> Rome alike.
>
>
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Egregious Nonsense...
>
>Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
>came not to send peace, but a sword."
>
>Mark 12:17 -- "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar
>the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
>And they marvelled at him."
>
>Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
>search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
>contributors.
"Jesus Christ! The same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
Hebrews 13:8
Saint Paul's reaction upon being served a monotonous diet. I know
exactly how he felt after seeing Hines once again being too
intellectually lethargic to come up with anything new to post.
I don't know how far your Alzheimer's has progressed, David.
Perhaps you don't actually realise that you have already posted
the above content at least once.
This tendency of yours to bombard us multiple times with the same
tired quotations and your own inanities shows a dismal lack of
imagination and creativity.
Edwin H. Land defined creativity as "the sudden cessation of
stupidity". Hines's well-documented lack of creativity could be
defined as "the incessant repetition of stupidity".
James
Martin
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gd04oi$ftg$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:R7MIk.154$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>> Egregious Nonsense.
>>
>> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
>
>
> Tell all oh great one...
>
> I mean, Tacitus wasn't actually born until 51AD...
A mere technicality William! His account remains the only truly objective
and independent one, even though they never met. he didn't even meet nero -
probably just as well! The scathing rudeness, bluffness and irreverence of
Tacitus is delightful, and gives his work an unquestionable air of
authenticity IMO. He wrote for no-one but himself, and took no prisoners.
The fact that the cut 'n paste commander mention Josephus as a 'source' says
enough about his gullibility and stupidity - as if we need any more?
William Black
"Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:ld2Jk.2512$qH4...@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gd04oi$ftg$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>> news:R7MIk.154$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>>> Egregious Nonsense.
>>>
>>> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
>>
>> Tacitus is a primary source for the existence of Jesus?
>>
>> Tell all oh great one...
>>
>> I mean, Tacitus wasn't actually born until 51AD...
>
> A mere technicality William! His account remains the only truly objective
> and independent one, even though they never met. he didn't even meet
> nero - probably just as well! The scathing rudeness, bluffness and
> irreverence of Tacitus is delightful, and gives his work an unquestionable
> air of authenticity IMO. He wrote for no-one but himself, and took no
> prisoners.
Except that some modern commentators think the bit about Jesus is a more
modern insertion.
Martin
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:6I6dneifqbfHsWnV...@comcast.com...
I've always wondered why that happened? There is speculation that it is
because of early Christian desires to blame the jews, rather than the nice
Romans they were sucking up to for favours... how sordid!
>> The 'Jesus Diaries' never have turned up, have they?
>> He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
>>
>> As for him knowing he was going to get the chop (or the nailing,
>> whatever?), even if you take the gospels as being the ... er, 'gospel
>> truth', J of Nazereth put up no defence (despite encouragement from
>> Pilate), and appeared to have been in deep shock before and during his
>> execution...
>
> Which doesn't mean that he didn't know or at least strongly suspect that
> he'd run afoul of the Sadducees who would find a way to dispense with him,
> especially as clearing the Temple precincts was probably not an act of
> passion in the moment but premeditated, and an act surely to get the
> attention of the authorities.
A trouble-making publicity seeker? Backfired rather painfully if so...
>> The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit
>> political conditions centuries later,
>
> No.
Yes it was... when the church was creeping to Constantine.
> as were his teachings and advice on moral
>> issues -
>
> Wrong there too.
I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we know
as the Bible, is a matter of record. It was designed to appeal to 'Roman
taste', without emphasis on vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and
respect for women. In fact, the few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht
still exist, were almost all excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the
four canonical gospels have survived.... odd that?
> this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
>
> Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
> historians think differently.
Do you mean 'early-Christian apologists'? Objective historians can only
really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
> I am sure
>> he did exist even so, but not as a deity,
>
> sure
>
> merely an all-too-human
>> troublemaker,
>
> So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed
> things that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other
> writings of the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I don't
> see how you can reconcile your two claims.
Claims? Observations, no more. The Bible has been passed down via
translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries, and now exists in many
forms. The numerous cantradictions within it are compounded by
contradictions between the various versions - it has been altered and edited
to suit various times, people and societies. this is not the 'infallible
word of God', it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
cofusing and contradictory lump.
Even the teachings and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and unreliable,
no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne, Constantine
and King James I/VI... as well as the political ambitions and dictates of
the church(es)
Just like any other ancient (or old) document, it requires careful reading
between the lines, since almost all such works were written by biased people
with some agenda, someone to please, someone to avoid displeasing, or with
some purpose in mind. Believe utterly at your peril!
Martin
"J Antero" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:Btudnbdci6vtRW7V...@earthlink.com...
Interesting... no mention of "if you wanna get into Heaven, you have to go
through me!"
I never thought he said that, too much like a night-club bouncer really/
Martin
> The Parable Of The Talents...
>
> Yes...
>
> Jesus Christ was a smart religious leader who understood the
> importance of attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his
> ENTERPRISE.
>
> Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
Rather negative about money-lending though, eh Dave?
te...@tiglath.net
The Governor of Judea was a prefect in times of Pilate, i.e., when
Judea had a king. When Herod died Claudius started to govern the
province directly through a procurator, and so thereon. The Governor
of Judea was under the authority of the Legate of Syria. A legate
commanded legions, usually only one, and a prefect/procurator had only
auxiliary troops. Prefect was primarily a military position, and
procurator a financial one, though Pilate clearly had military,
financial, and judicial responsibilities, the emphasis was military.
The Pilate Inscription in Caesarea confirms that Pilate's Latin title
was, "Praefectus."
Tacitus was not only a historian but a historian of the Tiberius
period in particular. If you read the Annals, (a real pleasure of a
book to the point that when you hit a lacuna -- often at crucial
points of the story -- you almost burst into tears) you will see the
level of detail and knowledge Tacitus gives. I find it unlikely that
such a distinguished historian of the period would make the mistake to
identify Pilate as procurator, because he never was one. At least it
is a non trivial factor in adding doubt to the passage authenticity.
Paul J Gans
And while everyone knows it, all should remind themselves that
detailed literary analysis of the Bible (both testaments) goes
back well into the 19th century.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
te...@tiglath.net
> Claims? Observations, no more. The Bible has been passed down via
> translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries, and now exists in many
> forms. [...]
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap32.html
Larry Swain
To a degree....but at the time in the late first century, the Christians
viewed the "Jews" as being the instigators of persecution against
Christians making use of the Roman administration in various districts
to do so. (Not addressing the historical viability of this, just the
early Christian view). So they attempt to separate the two: excuse the
Romans while vilifying those who turn them in. Good politics, which I
suppose also fits the sordid definition.
>
>>>The 'Jesus Diaries' never have turned up, have they?
>>>He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
>>>
>>>As for him knowing he was going to get the chop (or the nailing,
>>>whatever?), even if you take the gospels as being the ... er, 'gospel
>>>truth', J of Nazereth put up no defence (despite encouragement from
>>>Pilate), and appeared to have been in deep shock before and during his
>>>execution...
>>
>>Which doesn't mean that he didn't know or at least strongly suspect that
>>he'd run afoul of the Sadducees who would find a way to dispense with him,
>>especially as clearing the Temple precincts was probably not an act of
>>passion in the moment but premeditated, and an act surely to get the
>>attention of the authorities.
>
>
> A trouble-making publicity seeker? Backfired rather painfully if so...
I'm not sure he really fits this bill. "Trouble-making" is in the eye
of the troubled I would think. His clearing of the Temple was the
physical manifestation of a great frustration that Pharisees and their
followers had with those who operated the Temple and its precincts, the
Sadducees. From the Sadducee point of view, yes, a trouble maker, from
those who opposed the Sadducees, not so much. As for "publicity", what
is that in the ancient world?
>
>>>The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit
>>>political conditions centuries later,
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes it was... when the church was creeping to Constantine.
No. Get it right if you want to play the game. The "story" of his
demise is already told in Paul's letters, writing in the mid first
century some 20 years after the fact, and still 250 years from the
Battle at Milvian Bridge.
>
>
>> as were his teachings and advice on moral
>>
>>>issues -
>>
>>Wrong there too.
>
>
> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we know
> as the Bible, is a matter of record.
You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
misunderstood the situation.
>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman
> taste', without emphasis on vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and
> respect for women. In fact, the few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht
> still exist, were almost all excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the
> four canonical gospels have survived.... odd that?
Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based.
The historian doesn't make such claims. BTW, the four that became
canonical are dated earlier than those that were not later made
canonical, except perhaps GThomas, and so have a much better claim to be
contemporary since three of the four fall into a date of less than 50
years after the events they describe unlike most of the others that fall
into the second century and a century or more after. As for
"genuiness", I suppose it all depends on what measure you use for
genuiness. They're all genuine ancient texts.
Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine? And
if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several groups
who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as
justification for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your
claim.
Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance of
slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter to
Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in the
canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and isn't
recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just becomes an
argument from silence then.
Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the
canonical gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the
mores of the day.
The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any
gospel not included in the canon.
>
>
>>this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
>>
>>Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
>>historians think differently.
>
>
> Do you mean 'early-Christian apologists'?
No.
Objective historians can only
> really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
>
>
>> I am sure
>>
>>>he did exist even so, but not as a deity,
>>
>>sure
>>
>> merely an all-too-human
>>
>>>troublemaker,
>>
>>So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed
>>things that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other
>>writings of the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I don't
>>see how you can reconcile your two claims.
>
>
> Claims? Observations, no more.
Then erroneous ones.
The Bible has been passed down via
> translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
and now exists in many
> forms.
Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies
in different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the
Egyptian book of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much
of an "observation."
The numerous cantradictions within it
Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas,
Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just
names.....
are compounded by
> contradictions between the various versions - it has been altered and edited
> to suit various times, people and societies.
Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from
quite early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has
a high probability of being as close to the original text as humanly
possible. The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes
some changes and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to
other papyri from around the world and find that that change doesn't
exist there and further that the change benefits a particular
theological viewpoint.....the objective text critic then rejects the
change. That's an oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your
"observation."
this is not the 'infallible
> word of God',
never claimed it was.
it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
> by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
> cofusing and contradictory lump.
So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
just because of that.
> Even the teachings and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and unreliable,
So? If he was a human being, why should this surprise anyone?
> no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne, Constantine
> and King James I/VI...
Evidence? You do use the term "despot" rather loosely.
as well as the political ambitions and dictates of
> the church(es)
> Just like any other ancient (or old) document, it requires careful reading
> between the lines, since almost all such works were written by biased people
*ALL* works are written by biased people, then or now. Everyone has a
point of view.
> with some agenda, someone to please, someone to avoid displeasing, or with
> some purpose in mind. Believe utterly at your peril!
>
Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts and
what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they may or
may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites enthusiastic
acceptance of your "observations."
Larry Swain
18th, actually. But yes, 'tisn't a new enterprise.
te...@tiglath.net
> Martin wrote:
>
> The Bible has been passed down via
>
> > translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>
> As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>
Absolutely not.
What scribe would have a potent interest in changing the outcome of a
battle described by Thucydides?
What monk would be motivated to long ruminate a clever interpolation
to Polybius account of the Second Punic War?
Yet it's quite easy to understand why a monk certainly added an
account of the Resurrection to Mark (Mark 16:9-20 ), which cannot be
found in earlier manuscripts -- and egregious example of many such
changes.
It is then quite incorrect to assume that "every other text from the
ancient and medieval worlds" has undergone the same scrutiny,
consideration, and transformation as the Christian religious texts,
for which establishing credibility has been a vital interest -- and
difficulty -- of their keepers: The Church.
> ...
>
> read more »
te...@tiglath.net
"The Church [of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem] has been vigilantly
managed by six competing and often fractious Christian denominations
-- Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian
Orthodox and Ethiopian – since an agreement reached under Ottoman law
in 1757.
"Rival denominations often battle for access or space and the
congregation at the annual Easter service sometimes resembles the
terraces of a boisterous football match. Under British rule soldiers
with fixed bayonets had to separate brawling Christians. To this day
the keys to the Church’s main entrance are held by a ***Muslim***
family, because the Christians do not trust each other.
"The dispute over the the Deir Al-Sultan monastery is a more recent
phenomenon dating back to Easter 1970. When the Coptic monks, who had
controlled the area, went to pray in the main church and left the
rooftop unattended, Ethiopian monks seized the opportunity to change
the locks at the entrances before the Copts returned.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4944164.ece
I have seen this with my own eyes. There is a ladder on one of the
church's balcony, suggesting a quick repair is under way, but it that
has been there for decades (centuries?) because the infamous six can't
agree on who should remove it.
An a MUSLIM family keeps the keys to Christendom's Holiest of the
Holy.
Holy shit!
Michael Kuettner
"Larry Swain" schrieb :
> Martin wrote:
I mostly agree with Larry.
I just want to add a few notes.
>> I've always wondered why that happened? There is speculation that it is
>> because of early Christian desires to blame the jews, rather than the nice
>> Romans they were sucking up to for favours... how sordid!
>
> To a degree....but at the time in the late first century, the Christians
> viewed the "Jews" as being the instigators of persecution against Christians
> making use of the Roman administration in various districts to do so. (Not
> addressing the historical viability of this, just the early Christian view).
> So they attempt to separate the two: excuse the Romans while vilifying those
> who turn them in. Good politics, which I suppose also fits the sordid
> definition.
>
I'm not sure that I would see it only that way.
Wasn't the vilifiying also "necessary" to clearly separate the Pauline
sect from the rest of Judaism ?
<snip>
>> A trouble-making publicity seeker? Backfired rather painfully if so...
>
> I'm not sure he really fits this bill. "Trouble-making" is in the eye of the
> troubled I would think. His clearing of the Temple was the physical
> manifestation of a great frustration that Pharisees and their followers had
> with those who operated the Temple and its precincts, the Sadducees. From the
> Sadducee point of view, yes, a trouble maker, from those who opposed the
> Sadducees, not so much. As for "publicity", what is that in the ancient
> world?
>
From the Roman point of view he also was a trouble-maker.
The Sadducees collected the taxes for the Romans; anything or anyone
disturbing that tax-farming asked for serious trouble.
<snip>
>> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we know
>> as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>
> You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
> misunderstood the situation.
>
It should also be pointed out that there were (and are) several canonical
versions of the OT and the NT, which vary between Judaism (for the OT)
and various Christian denominations.
Regarding censorship : The churchfather Augustine didn't try to suppress
the Apokryphae. He said that they held many truths but also too many
errors than to be regarded canonical.
His words (De civitate Dei XV) :
'In his autem apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen proptr multa falsa
nulla est canonica auctoritas.'
Another note for the Old Testament : The canonisation of the Judaic OT happened
roughly 300BC - 150BC. The Rom. - Cath. canon of Trient (1545) includes
45 books - 6 more than the Judaic canon. Strange kind of censorship here ...
<snip>
>> no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne, Constantine
>> and King James I/VI...
>
> Evidence? You do use the term "despot" rather loosely.
>
Let's look at Constantine. He didn't give shit about what was in the book -
as long as it didn't contain phrases like "Thou shallst slay the emperor".
C. needed a unified "church of the state". So he invited all the splinter
groups of Christians (did anyone really think there was but one Christian
creed at C.'s time ?) and forced them to come to an agreement which the
Christian majority could live with.
Next - Carolus Magnus.
He was in no position to alter anything. The real quarrel was between
Roman and Byzantine theologicans (a quarrel which would eventually
result in the schism over 200 years later). At CM.'s time the Western
theologicans were barely able to follow the arguments of the Byzantines -
Greek wasn't spoken among European theologicians anymore...
Now, if Martin could expand a little about James I/VI, maybe there could
an argument about manipulating the "holy script" to be had ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
te...@tiglath.net
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article487831.ece
==================
POLICE in Jerusalem reprimanded senior Greek Orthodox and Franciscan
clerics yesterday after priests got into a brawl inside the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, one of Christianity’s holiest places.
Three Greek Orthodox clergy who started the punch-up with Franciscans
were released from custody but may still face charges.
Both sides said they would try to resolve their differences. But
rivalry has often boiled over between the six Christian sects that
share the church on the site at Golgotha, where tradition dictates
that Jesus was crucified and buried.
A fragile peace is maintained by a book of rules, known as the “status
quo”, that ***took centuries*** to hammer out and governs the tiniest
details of life in the church. Tensions have degenerated into violence
because of some perceived infringement.
The spark for the latest fist-fight came when the Franciscans left
open their chapel door as a Greek Orthodox procession approached.
Greek Orthodox priests, annoyed because the door should have been
closed, insulted Franciscans in the doorway and a brawl ensued.
Israeli police with batons took five minutes to break up the brawl.
“Police were hit. Monks were hit. There were people with bloodied
faces,” Aviad Sar Shalom, a guide, said.
One Franciscan was hauled by his rope belt from the chapel by Greek
Orthodox clerics. “They’re trying to kill me, they want to kill me,”
he wailed as he was beaten.
A Franciscan friar from Ghana fought his way into the fray to try to
free his colleague. But it was an Arab photographer and a shopkeeper
who freed him by cutting the rope. Shmuel Ben-Ruby, a spokesman for
police in Jerusalem, said that both sides had been “told in no
uncertain terms that this was no way for religious leaders to behave”.
Two years ago 11 monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox church were taken
to hospital after a fight with members of the Egyptian Coptic Church.
========================
Shiites and Sunni move over.
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:CeWdnQW0MdCvSmnV...@comcast.com...
Martin
Play the game... an interesting term? Very well...
Paul (who for some reason is given an almost god-like status by many
authoritarian, conservative Christians) never met Jesus, a homophobic,
misogynist of obscure Turkish/Jewish Roman roots - with the worst
characteristics of all those! Tent maker and zealot... what a piece of work.
>>> as were his teachings and advice on moral
>>>
>>>>issues -
>>>
>>>Wrong there too.
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we
>> know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>
> You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
> misunderstood the situation.
It was a polite, somewhat archaic term I will not use again in theis 'game'.
I don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT misunderstood
anything!
>>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on
>>vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and respect for women. In fact, the
>>few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht still exist, were almost all
>>excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the four canonical gospels
>>have survived.... odd that?
>
> Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based. The
> historian doesn't make such claims.
Eh? Considering the patently absurd claims made by so-called 'theologians',
I think that's extremely mild. A historian is ideally objective, ruthlessly
so, entirely without prejudice, fear or favour. Like me.
> BTW, the four that became canonical are dated earlier than those that were
> not later made canonical, except perhaps GThomas, and so have a much
> better claim to be contemporary since three of the four fall into a date
> of less than 50 years after the events they describe unlike most of the
> others that fall into the second century and a century or more after. As
> for "genuiness", I suppose it all depends on what measure you use for
> genuiness. They're all genuine ancient texts.
None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies survive -
certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century is
a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans. Memories were
no better back then, and records were few and far between in alargely
illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are seriously
compromised. Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question are
extant.
> Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine?
I don't. That's the whole point!
Even so, near contemporary manuscripts DO exist, which describe Jesus as
being rather strong on the subject - more than one. They were of course left
out of the NT, dor fear of offending Romans or putting Constantine off.
> And if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several
> groups who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as
> justification for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your
> claim.
I made no claim... just stated some facts. If some people see indications
in the canonical gospels to support this notion, all well and good - I am
not 'undermined' in any way.
> Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance of
> slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter to
> Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in the
> canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and isn't
> recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just becomes an
> argument from silence then.
It was part of his world, and it would have been about as much use railing
against as it would be for me to condemn computers or motor cars.
> Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the canonical
> gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the mores of the
> day.
That's good to know... though it doesn't explain the RCC's objection to
ordaining women for so many centuries. Women have hardly been 'elevated' by
the churches, whatever type!
> The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
> canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any gospel
> not included in the canon.
But there is no evidence - the originals do not exist, to be carbon dated,
checked for content etc. The 'other gospels' do however... these are
historical facts, as observed by archaologists and historians - objectively.
>>>this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
>>>
>>>Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
>>>historians think differently.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean 'early-Christian apologists'?
>
> No.
Ah... later ones then. I know.
> Objective historians can only
>> really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
>
> That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
Yet I make that 1-0 at least in this game, the ball firmly and squarely in
the back of your net!
>>> I am sure
>>>
>>>>he did exist even so, but not as a deity,
>>>
>>>sure
>>>
>>> merely an all-too-human
>>>
>>>>troublemaker,
>>>
>>>So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed
>>>things that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other
>>>writings of the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I don't
>>>see how you can reconcile your two claims.
>>
>>
>> Claims? Observations, no more.
>
> Then erroneous ones.
An erroneous statement. Is that 2-0?
> The Bible has been passed down via
>> translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>
> As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>
> and now exists in many
>> forms.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies
> in different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the
> Egyptian book of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much of
> an "observation."
I mean 'versions'... made up to suit the cult/sect/churches political tastes
as and when required. If you don't believe me, have a discussion about the
bible with the next Jehova's Witnesses who cal - and try quoting the KJ
version. You will see they have a different Bible!
3-0
> The numerous cantradictions within it
>
> Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
> historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas,
> Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just
> names.....
That should of course have been 'contradictions', sorry. I meant
contradictions between the OT and NT, and even between the gospeld - never
mind the conflicting advice throughout.
> are compounded by
>> contradictions between the various versions - it has been altered and
>> edited to suit various times, people and societies.
>
> Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from
> quite early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has a
> high probability of being as close to the original text as humanly
> possible.
A large number of copies of a copy does not prove the original copy was
genuine, honest or correct! This old chestnut comes up again and again.
> The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
> and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from
> around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and further
> that the change benefits a particular theological viewpoint.....the
> objective text critic then rejects the change. That's an
> oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based on
unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is made
when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically replicated
in every subsequent copy forever, no matter how many are made - or how
carefully and honestly reproduced. The originals have gone missing - why?
What could be more precious?
That's 4-0 at least... half time?
> this is not the 'infallible
>> word of God',
>
> never claimed it was.
Very wise Larry!
> it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>> by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>> cofusing and contradictory lump.
>
> So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
> just because of that.
I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception. No need for
that, even if I did wish to 'rubbish the Bible' - which I don't. There is no
need.
>> Even the teachings and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and
>> unreliable,
>
> So? If he was a human being, why should this surprise anyone?
Good... you're beginning to understand.
>> no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne,
>> Constantine and King James I/VI...
>
> Evidence? You do use the term "despot" rather loosely.
They were all despots, no dispute there, surely?
> as well as the political ambitions and dictates of
>> the church(es)
>> Just like any other ancient (or old) document, it requires careful
>> reading between the lines, since almost all such works were written by
>> biased people
>
> *ALL* works are written by biased people, then or now. Everyone has a
> point of view.
Agreed.
>> with some agenda, someone to please, someone to avoid displeasing, or
>> with some purpose in mind. Believe utterly at your peril!
>>
>
> Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts and
> what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they may or may
> not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites enthusiastic acceptance
> of your "observations."
But you appear to 'believe' rather than analyse, consider and weigh up the
evidence. Do you have faith in the early censors and editors of the Bible? I
don't, and nor would any other reputable historian.
Cheers
Martin
te...@tiglath.net
> Good Post!
On the contrary. It's quietly abusive and often wrong. See below.
> --
> DSH
>
> >> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what
> >> we know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>
> > You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've
> > grossly misunderstood the situation.
>
That appears like an effective rebuttal, but it's fluff. Martin is
correct.
This is what the eminent Christian historian Paul Johnson has to say
about it in his 'History of the Jews'.
"When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying
jungle of scholarly contradictions. All where writing evangelism
rather
than history. [he is just being kind, read "fancy tales" instead of
"true
narrative]."
He continues, "...all the documents have a long pre-history before
they
reached the written form.... The canonical documents thus overlap with
the
earliest writing of the Church Fathers. They are the products of the
early
Church and they are tainted in the sense that they reflect
ecclesisatical
controversy as well as evangelical motivation, the difficulties of
reducing
oral descriptions of mysterious concepts to writing, and a variety of
linguistic traps. The possibilites for misunderstanding are infinite.
"
"Tainted in the sense that they reflect [...] evangelical motivation,"
would comprise original falsehoods and later additions.
>
> > Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically
> > based.
Pulling rank is not an argument. Just because Martin is not an
academic historian it doesn't nullify his argument.
> > The historian doesn't make such claims.
Indeed he does. See above. There are several ways to say a source
is unreliably and that its record lends it little trust.
>
> > Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance
> > of slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter
> > to Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in
> > the canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and
> > isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just
> > becomes an argument from silence then.
>
It does not. It becomes a Sin of Omission.
The Argumentum ad Silentio doesn't apply here. Especially since Jesus
Father, whose decrees Jesus is not to deny, makes it quite clear that
slavery if fine. The New Testament doesn't exist in a vacuum.
You either make the analysis of Jesus as a man, or as the divine,
moral-code-giving Messiah, make up your mind.
As a man his silence on slavery is natural; it was part of the
societal fabric of the time. But as the latter, it's a disqualifying
omission for an eternal god, who is supposed to be the source of
morality.
>
> > Then erroneous ones.
>
> > The Bible has been passed down via
> >> translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>
> > As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>
This is plain wrong as explained elsewhere and as Paul Johnson's
passage shows. Most ancient texts have had a very quiet life
compared to Christian scripture. A historian would should know
that.
>
> > The numerous cantradictions within it
>
> > Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct.
Here Martin gets unfairly abused for using "The Bible" correctly.
Why refer to the Bible by its parts if one thinks that all of it
suffers from the same problem of unreliability, even when different
parts cause doubt in different ways?
> > The
> > objective historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke,
> > John, Thomas, Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that
> > the names are just names.....
This is more rank-pulling. Wholly unnecessary showing off.
An after dealing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Philip,
Judas, etc., the historian may well realize, as many have, that the
New Testament is riddled with uncertainties, contradictions, and
reliability problems, which happen to be the same ills as the Old
Testament, which means the the whole Bible is just an exercise in
"anything goes," with a bit here and there that passes muster.
>
> > Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts
> > and what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they
> > may or may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites
> > enthusiastic acceptance of your "observations."
Off the mark again. The historians' objective conclusions matter only
because they represent what's agreed by those who investigate and its
potential utility in guiding the decision of whether to believe the
texts or not. It's the END PRODUCT of what historians do and
conclude. In fact, the very reason we are discussing those text and
not something more fun like Suetonius, is that imperial gossip if far
less important than the question of whether the Christian texts have
any truth in them, for if they do, we REALLY should embrace Jesus and
drop everything else, and if they don't we should stop praying to the
wallpaper.
te...@tiglath.net
On Oct 14, 5:14 pm, "Martin" <martin1471spamf...@outgun.com> wrote:
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
> None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies survive -
> certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century is
> a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans. Memories were
> no better back then, and records were few and far between in alargely
> illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are seriously
> compromised. Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question are
> extant.
>
The time lag means lack of primary sources and eyewitnesses.
The problem with the authors of the Synoptic Gospels being anonymous
can't be overstated.
It signifies that there is no way to gauge the credibility we ought to
accord to the writers, stemming from their background, position,
interests, and motivations. Not to mention what skill they possessed
in translating from Aramaic verbal accounts to Greek, what sources
they used and the reliability of those sources, which are ALSO
anonymous.
Never has so much been entrusted to shadows.
Not to mention the Synoptic Problem of inter-consistency, or lack of
it, and the textual variations both detected and undetected, both
fraudulent and accidental, of the extant texts.
Some people claim that if we had no New Testament text at all, you
could put together all of it from the writings of the Church Fathers
alone.
.... Only that, even if so, you've cubed the puzzle...
>
> > The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
> > and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from
> > around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and further
> > that the change benefits a particular theological viewpoint.....the
> > objective text critic then rejects the change. That's an
> > oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
>
> That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based on
> unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is made
> when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically replicated
> in every subsequent copy forever, no matter how many are made - or how
> carefully and honestly reproduced. The originals have gone missing - why?
> What could be more precious?
It also means that SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES have arisen for these
texts.
It's like letting the prosecution keep the written evidence for
fifteen centuries before the trial, and then at court have the judge
rule that copies of the evidence will be admitted.
But by far the MOST special circumstance is the extraordinary claims
made in the texts, which, there is a good chance, centuries of
alterations and errors have not made less extraordinary. Some
Christians proudly insists that copying errors and interpolations
didn't change the doctrinal contain significantly. Jews make a
similar claim based on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd say
it's a damn pity.
Because knowing for instance that the author of Mark was a highly-
respected, polyglot philosopher in Antioch named Flavius, would hardly
be evidence for say, the truth of Lazarus' resuscitation or the virgin
birth.
It's a fair point to discuss the distortion of the message through pen
and time, but it pales next to the inherent problems with the
message. From the talking snake to the ascension to heaven we are in
fairyland. Let's not forget that diplodocus in the room...
You just don't have that kind of problem when Livy tells you that in
mid-fifth century BC there was a plowman who became Dictator of Rome,
saved his country, and returned to his plough seventeen days later,
much as it's a relief from a she-wolf suckling Villanovan twins.
>
> > it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
> >> by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
> >> cofusing and contradictory lump.
>
> > So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
> > just because of that.
>
> I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception. No need for
> that, even if I did wish to 'rubbish the Bible' - which I don't. There is no
> need.
The Bible is wonderful. It reveals a people passionate with their
own history and fate. Every culture should have a similar book.
The mistake is to take it for what it is not.
>
> >> no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne,
> >> Constantine and King James I/VI...
>
> > Evidence? You do use the term "despot" rather loosely.
>
> They were all despots, no dispute there, surely?
>
Bull's eye again. "Despot" = ruler with absolute power.
We've come to call the same thing different names in the degree we are
friends with or have a use for it...
Ally, first class: King <name> (governing un-emasculated
monarchs)
Ally, second class: General <name>
Neutral: Autocrat
Don't like (White): Dictator
Don't like (brown) Overlord
Quite dislike: Despot
Hate: Tyrant
Abhor: Fascist
Unmentionable: Hitler
Michael Kuettner
"Martin" schrieb :
>
> "Larry Swain" wrote :
>> Martin wrote:
>>> "Larry Swain" wrote :
<hack'n'slash>
>>>>>The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit political
>>>>>conditions centuries later,
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it was... when the church was creeping to Constantine.
>>
>> No. Get it right if you want to play the game. The "story" of his demise is
>> already told in Paul's letters, writing in the mid first century some 20
>> years after the fact, and still 250 years from the Battle at Milvian Bridge.
>
> Play the game... an interesting term? Very well...
>
> Paul (who for some reason is given an almost god-like status by many
> authoritarian, conservative Christians) never met Jesus,
Why bring in Christians in a discussion about history ?
Yes, we know that Paulus never met Christ. What else is new ?
> a homophobic, misogynist of obscure Turkish/Jewish Roman roots - with the
> worst characteristics of all those! Tent maker and zealot... what a piece of
> work.
>
And how do you know that ?
Because of - wait for it - analyzing the bible with the means in the
arsenal of historians.
So, what's your beef ?
<snip>
>>> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we know
>>> as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>
>> You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
>> misunderstood the situation.
>
> It was a polite, somewhat archaic term I will not use again in theis 'game'. I
> don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT misunderstood
> anything!
>
Sorry, Martin, you clearly have misunderstood some things.
See my other post.
>>>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on
>>>vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and respect for women. In fact, the few
>>>genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht still exist, were almost all excluded
>>>from the NT, and no such copies of the four canonical gospels have
>>>survived.... odd that?
>>
>> Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based. The
>> historian doesn't make such claims.
>
> Eh? Considering the patently absurd claims made by so-called 'theologians', I
> think that's extremely mild. A historian is ideally objective, ruthlessly so,
> entirely without prejudice, fear or favour. Like me.
>
Again, what have theologicans to do with historical discussions ?
You seem to think that Larry (or me) want to sell the bible as "The Truth[tm]".
I look at the book as a historical source.
<snip>
>> Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine?
>
> I don't. That's the whole point!
> Even so, near contemporary manuscripts DO exist, which describe Jesus as being
> rather strong on the subject - more than one. They were of course left out of
> the NT, dor fear of offending Romans or putting Constantine off.
>
Could you cite those, please ?
And define what you mean by "near contemporary manuscripts" ?
>> And if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several groups
>> who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as justification
>> for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your claim.
>
> I made no claim... just stated some facts. If some people see indications in
> the canonical gospels to support this notion, all well and good - I am not
> 'undermined' in any way.
>
In this case, you are.
You are arguing against church doctrine, while Larry just states what can
be gleamed from the sources.
<snip>
>> Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the canonical
>> gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the mores of the day.
>
> That's good to know... though it doesn't explain the RCC's objection to
> ordaining women for so many centuries. Women have hardly been 'elevated' by
> the churches, whatever type!
>
There's your problem again - your fight against church doctrine instead of
just looking at the sources.
If you want to rail against the church (whatever church), I'll bow out of the
discussion; it would be OT and I feel no need to defend any faith.
If you want to discuss history (how the canon was formed), please stay away
from generalizations and conspiracy theories.
>> The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
>> canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any gospel
>> not included in the canon.
>
> But there is no evidence - the originals do not exist, to be carbon dated,
> checked for content etc. The 'other gospels' do however... these are
> historical facts, as observed by archaologists and historians - objectively.
>
There is evidence.
Linguistics, textual criticism, etc.
If you have any hard data about the 'other gospels' (you mean the Apokryphae,
I guess), please cite it !
<snip>
>> Objective historians can only
>>> really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
>>
>> That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
>
> Yet I make that 1-0 at least in this game, the ball firmly and squarely in the
> back of your net!
>
Not really.
Evidence, Mr. Reboul, evidence is needed.
<snip>
>>>>So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed things
>>>>that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other writings of
>>>>the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I don't see how you can
>>>>reconcile your two claims.
>>>
>>>
>>> Claims? Observations, no more.
>>
>> Then erroneous ones.
>
> An erroneous statement. Is that 2-0?
>
Nope.
Unless you specify your observations ...
<snip>
>> Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies in
>> different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the Egyptian book
>> of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much of an
>> "observation."
>
> I mean 'versions'... made up to suit the cult/sect/churches political tastes
> as and when required. If you don't believe me, have a discussion about the
> bible with the next Jehova's Witnesses who cal - and try quoting the KJ
> version. You will see they have a different Bible!
>
> 3-0
>
Since neither JW's nor KJ have a place in a discussion of the bible as
a historical source, nope. Again.
This is really beneath your level, Martin.
Using red herrings like that. WTF have JWs and the KJB to do with
the (early) canon of the bible and the apokryphae ?
>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>
>> Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
>> historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Philip,
>> Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just names.....
>
> That should of course have been 'contradictions', sorry. I meant
> contradictions between the OT and NT, and even between the gospeld - never
> mind the conflicting advice throughout.
>
(a) Shouldn't that be 'godspel' ? (Serious question, Old English is my forte)
(b) Of course there are contradictions. You are still arguing against the
point that the bible is the word of dog and true.
Noone claimed that in this discussion.
<snip>
>> Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from quite
>> early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has a high
>> probability of being as close to the original text as humanly possible.
>
> A large number of copies of a copy does not prove the original copy was
> genuine, honest or correct! This old chestnut comes up again and again.
>
A large number of copies can be compared. From that comparison we can
draw a conclusion what the original actually said.
Honesty or correctness don't enter the picture.
We just know what was written, not whether it was "true" or "honest".
>> The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes and
>> affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from around
>> the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and further that the
>> change benefits a particular theological viewpoint.....the objective text
>> critic then rejects the change. That's an oversimplification, naturally, but
>> addresses your "observation."
>
> That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based on
> unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is made when
> translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically replicated in
> every subsequent copy forever,
Yes. But the branch where that error occurred can be traced.
And compared to other MSSs, the original text can be reconstructed.
Again : Forget "truth" or "honesty".
We can just intelligently guess, what the original text said.
> no matter how many are made - or how carefully and honestly reproduced. The
> originals have gone missing - why?
Warfare, shifting borders, the Jewish wars, bedouins using the MSSs for lighting
fires and wiping their asses... - The list is endless.
> What could be more precious?
>
> That's 4-0 at least... half time?
>
Not really.
>> this is not the 'infallible
>>> word of God',
>>
>> never claimed it was.
>
> Very wise Larry!
>
Ah, you finally get the point ?
>> it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>>> by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>>> cofusing and contradictory lump.
>>
>> So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it just
>> because of that.
>
> I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception. No need for
> that, even if I did wish to 'rubbish the Bible' - which I don't. There is no
> need.
>
I'm not so sure in your case. Instead of looking at the book without
passion and regarding it as just a historical source, you argue against
theological instead of historical points.
<snip>
>> Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts and what
>> objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they may or may not
>> draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites enthusiastic acceptance of your
>> "observations."
>
> But you appear to 'believe' rather than analyse, consider and weigh up the
> evidence. Do you have faith in the early censors and editors of the Bible? I
> don't, and nor would any other reputable historian.
>
Show me the early censors and editors (see my other post).
All you've shown so far is a heavy dislike for (organized) religion.
Nothing wrong with that, but that's not a historical discussion.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
Do you think the Jesus Seminar was an improvement over accepting all the
supposed Jesus sayings in the NT?
J Antero
> Martin wrote:
>> Yes it was... when the church was creeping to Constantine.
>
> No. Get it right if you want to play the game. The "story" of his demise
> is already told in Paul's letters, writing in the mid first century some
> 20 years after the fact, and still 250 years from the Battle at Milvian
> Bridge.
Why don't you cut and paste what Paul says about how he got exectued.
Is that descripotion by any chance in the part of Paul's letters that are
understood to be fakes?
te...@tiglath.net
> You seem to think that Larry (or me) want to sell the bible as "The Truth[tm]".
> I look at the book as a historical source.
Ouch!
If we examine what evidence we have for the Israelite appearance and
settlements in Canaan, we find that it falls in three disparate and
unequal bodies of material. First we have the historical traditions
preserved in the Old Testament, which far exceeds in volume the other
two; secondly, the extra-Biblical textual evidence; and finally, the
archeological data of excavation.
The sources, both Egyptian and West Asian make no references to
Israel, its congeners, or Biblical associates prior to the twelfth
century BC; and beyond that point for four centuries a mere half dozen
allusions can be elicited. The dearth of citations is also paralleled
on the Biblical side by a similar absence of any specific reference
betraying a knowledge of Egypt or the Levant during the second
millenium BC. There is no mention of an Egyptian empire (one of the
superpowers of the times) encompassing the eastern Mediterranean, no
marching Egyptian armies bent on punitive campaigns, no
countermarching Hittite forces, no resident governors, and no
Egyptianized kinglets ruling Canaanite cities. On the latest and
most disastrous migration of the second millenium, that of the Sea
Peoples, the Haxateuch knows nothing: Genesis and Exodus find the
Philistines already settled in the land at the time of Abraham. There
are many errors and omissions, so that we cannot help to conclude that
Biblical writers of the seventh to sixth centuries BC lacked precise
knowledge of Egypt as recent as a few generations before their own
time.
Such ignorance is puzzling if one has felt inclined to be impressed by
the traditional claims of inerrancy made by conservative Christianity
on behalf of the Bible. The Pentatecuch and the historical books
boldly present a precise chronology. Following this chronology, which
I will omit, gives us the following astounding facts. The birth of
Abraham is in 2216 BC, the Sojourn in Egypt (430 years) spans the
outgoing 12th Dynasty, the entire 13th Dynasty, the Hyksos occupation,
and the early Dynasty to Hatshepsut's ninth year! Allowing 40 years
for the Wandering, the conquest of the land under Joshua must have
begun in 1456 BC, or on the morrow of Thutmose III's victorious
campaigns when all Canaan belonged to Egypt, and on the eve of
Amenophis II's deportation of the local population. Even more
astounding are the implications of the resulting of the Period of the
Judges, namely 1456-1080 BC. This fits almost exactly the Egyptian
empire in Asia. Yet our Egyptian sources mention neither the
patriarchs, Israel in Egypt, Joshua, nor his successors, while the
Bible says absolutely nothing about the Egyptian empire in the land.
In fact, the Biblical writers are wholly and blissfully unaware of the
colossal discrepancy to which their "history" and "chronology" have
given rise.
Because the basic pattern of Patriarchal Age, Descent and Sojourn,
Exodus and Conquest, and Judges MUST be essentially correct (Do you
have a better one?). Numerous ingenious solutions are devised. The
most common trick is to reduce time spans to generations, of
adjustable length, until, say, the Exodus falls squarely into the
reign of Ramesses II and thus the allusions of him in Exodus can be
nicely accommodated. Such manhandling of the evidence smacks of
prestidigitation and numerology; yet it has produced the shaky
foundations on which a lamentable number of "histories" of Israel have
been written, and a vast swath of western culture has been shaped.
te...@tiglath.net
> Nonsense...
>
> Matthew 10:34 -- "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
> came not to send peace, but a sword."
>
> the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
> And they marvelled at him."
>
> Further, he was, among other things, a "community organizer" -- in
> search of converts, financial backers and wealthy campaign
> contributors.
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
> >>Jesus was basically a pacifist socialist...
te...@tiglath.net
> Egregious Nonsense.
Mr. Hines has wisely elected to run for the tall grass in this
discussion before his parade of ignorance sucks up more bandwidth than
the Hawaiian trunk line has to offer.
Silent, surreptitious and without admitting error, par the course,
onto greener grass, he hopes.
I've hit him so many times he must think he is surrounded.
In we were in the ring, he'd be picking his nose out of a catalog.
Lege, Sape, Disce. (LSD)
Numquam Discere Desiste.
>
> Josephus and Tacitus -- just for starters.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
> <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:620adae9-1d53-4c05...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There are no solidly authentic historical references to Jesus
> > outside
> > the gospels.
Martin
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:gd380q$n1b$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Martin" schrieb :
>>
>> "Larry Swain" wrote :
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> "Larry Swain" wrote :
> <hack'n'slash>
>>>>>>The sorry tale of his demise was manufactured and altered to suit
>>>>>>political conditions centuries later,
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it was... when the church was creeping to Constantine.
>>>
>>> No. Get it right if you want to play the game. The "story" of his
>>> demise is already told in Paul's letters, writing in the mid first
>>> century some 20 years after the fact, and still 250 years from the
>>> Battle at Milvian Bridge.
>>
>> Play the game... an interesting term? Very well...
>>
>> Paul (who for some reason is given an almost god-like status by many
>> authoritarian, conservative Christians) never met Jesus,
>
> Why bring in Christians in a discussion about history ?
I will resist the temptation to make the obvious, flippant comment...
> Yes, we know that Paulus never met Christ. What else is new ?
Nothing 'new' - surely a matter of historical record and timing?
>> a homophobic, misogynist of obscure Turkish/Jewish Roman roots - with the
>> worst characteristics of all those! Tent maker and zealot... what a piece
>> of work.
>>
> And how do you know that ?
Because it's *written*, that's why! Sorry, slipped into 'Life of Brian' mode
there for a second. Paul reveals his unpleasant tendencies in his letters,
never mind the comments of those who had the bad luck to deal with the man.
> Because of - wait for it - analyzing the bible with the means in the
> arsenal of historians.
> So, what's your beef ?
My 'beef', if there is one, is with the arrogant, ignorant people who
blindly dismiss anything they don't like the look of, and follow established
dogma and tradition to the letter, claiming things to be 'the word of God'
or 'infallible' - after nearly 2000 years. Not you Michael, I know that, but
to my astonishment there are still plenty of folk around who place blind
faith in the early 'authors' (i.e. editors) of the Bible, and make
ridiculous claims about its historical accuracy, and divine authenticity.
> <snip>
>>>> I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we
>>>> know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>>
>>> You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
>>> misunderstood the situation.
>>
>> It was a polite, somewhat archaic term I will not use again in theis
>> 'game'. I don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT
>> misunderstood anything!
>>
> Sorry, Martin, you clearly have misunderstood some things.
> See my other post.
Must've missed it...
Just read it, and you make good points (I'll answer it in a min.)
As far as I have said however, I don't think I have 'misunderstood' (or
overlooked) anything significant?
>>>>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on
>>>>vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and respect for women. In fact,
>>>>the few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht still exist, were almost
>>>>all excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the four canonical
>>>>gospels have survived.... odd that?
>>>
>>> Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based.
>>> The historian doesn't make such claims.
>>
>> Eh? Considering the patently absurd claims made by so-called
>> 'theologians', I think that's extremely mild. A historian is ideally
>> objective, ruthlessly so, entirely without prejudice, fear or favour.
>> Like me.
>>
> Again, what have theologicans to do with historical discussions ?
> You seem to think that Larry (or me) want to sell the bible as "The
> Truth[tm]".
> I look at the book as a historical source.
So do I... and more importantly, all the correspondence, devious
machinations and skullduggery that goes around the development, presentation
and editing of said book.
As a historical source, the Bible is sadly lacking in archaeological detail,
and historical facts which can be proven by independent sourcs, such as A
Egypt, Rome and Greece.
> <snip>
>>> Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine?
>>
>> I don't. That's the whole point!
>> Even so, near contemporary manuscripts DO exist, which describe Jesus as
>> being rather strong on the subject - more than one. They were of course
>> left out of the NT, dor fear of offending Romans or putting Constantine
>> off.
>>
> Could you cite those, please ?
> And define what you mean by "near contemporary manuscripts" ?
Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea stuff.... very old, found in jars in caves, and as
close to 'events' as any known 'gospels' are by carbon dating, and careful
analysis.
Try this one... heavy duty!
http://reluctant-messenger.com/sophia-of-jesus.htm
And this... enlightening...
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/index.html
And this... vegetarian!
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_1.htm
>>> And if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several
>>> groups who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as
>>> justification for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your
>>> claim.
>>
>> I made no claim... just stated some facts. If some people see
>> indications in the canonical gospels to support this notion, all well and
>> good - I am not 'undermined' in any way.
>>
> In this case, you are.
> You are arguing against church doctrine, while Larry just states what can
> be gleamed from the sources.
I certainly am at odds with with you call 'church doctrine', and consider it
to be misleading, incomplete and deceitful at best, and corrupt, perverted
and dishonest at worst. The result of politics and necessity, NOT divine
revelation!
> <snip>
>>> Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the
>>> canonical gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the
>>> mores of the day.
>>
>> That's good to know... though it doesn't explain the RCC's objection to
>> ordaining women for so many centuries. Women have hardly been 'elevated'
>> by the churches, whatever type!
>>
> There's your problem again - your fight against church doctrine instead of
> just looking at the sources.
I'm afraid the two are inextricably linked and intertwined Michael!
Objectevity sometimes leads to indignation by default...
> If you want to rail against the church (whatever church), I'll bow out of
> the
> discussion; it would be OT and I feel no need to defend any faith.
> If you want to discuss history (how the canon was formed), please stay
> away
> from generalizations and conspiracy theories.
Fair enough... so what are your beliefs, who do you trust?
>>> The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
>>> canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any
>>> gospel not included in the canon.
>>
>> But there is no evidence - the originals do not exist, to be carbon
>> dated, checked for content etc. The 'other gospels' do however... these
>> are historical facts, as observed by archaologists and historians -
>> objectively.
>>
> There is evidence.
> Linguistics, textual criticism, etc.
> If you have any hard data about the 'other gospels' (you mean the
> Apokryphae,
> I guess), please cite it !
I've made a start... why do you think these gospels (no less reliable and
authentic than any others, and still available in very early versions,
unlike the 'canonical' gospels) are unimportant? As a historian, there can
be few more fascinating, intriguing and controversial subjects, surely?
> <snip>
>>> Objective historians can only
>>>> really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
>>>
>>> That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
>>
>> Yet I make that 1-0 at least in this game, the ball firmly and squarely
>> in the back of your net!
>>
> Not really.
> Evidence, Mr. Reboul, evidence is needed.
As provided... best I can do.
> <snip>
>>>>>So this means then that he can't have been a preacher who proclaimed
>>>>>things that can be matched either from the Hebrew Bible or from other
>>>>>writings of the time, but his teachings were all made up later? I
>>>>>don't see how you can reconcile your two claims.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Claims? Observations, no more.
>>>
>>> Then erroneous ones.
>>
>> An erroneous statement. Is that 2-0?
>>
> Nope.
> Unless you specify your observations ...
Done...
>>> Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies
>>> in different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the
>>> Egyptian book of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much
>>> of an "observation."
>>
>> I mean 'versions'... made up to suit the cult/sect/churches political
>> tastes as and when required. If you don't believe me, have a discussion
>> about the bible with the next Jehova's Witnesses who cal - and try
>> quoting the KJ version. You will see they have a different Bible!
>>
>> 3-0
>>
> Since neither JW's nor KJ have a place in a discussion of the bible as
> a historical source, nope. Again.
Okay, goal disallowed - this is history, not theological nonsense.
That's still 2-0 however...
> This is really beneath your level, Martin.
> Using red herrings like that. WTF have JWs and the KJB to do with
> the (early) canon of the bible and the apokryphae ?
Merely examples of the way in which the 'Good Book' has been altered, edited
and censored to suit the political tastes of those proclaimuing it as 'God's
Word', that's all.
No red-herring required.
>>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>>
>>> Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
>>> historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas,
>>> Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just
>>> names.....
>>
>> That should of course have been 'contradictions', sorry. I meant
>> contradictions between the OT and NT, and even between the gospeld -
>> never mind the conflicting advice throughout.
>>
> (a) Shouldn't that be 'godspel' ? (Serious question, Old English is my
> forte)
I thought that was a crappy musical? Sorry, just a modern English sp...
> (b) Of course there are contradictions. You are still arguing against the
> point that the bible is the word of dog and true.
> Noone claimed that in this discussion.
Certainly not me! I may have spent too much time arguing with Creationists
lately, no offence intended...
> <snip>
>>> Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from
>>> quite early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has
>>> a high probability of being as close to the original text as humanly
>>> possible.
>>
>> A large number of copies of a copy does not prove the original copy was
>> genuine, honest or correct! This old chestnut comes up again and again.
>>
> A large number of copies can be compared. From that comparison we can
> draw a conclusion what the original actually said.
> Honesty or correctness don't enter the picture.
> We just know what was written, not whether it was "true" or "honest".
Agreed.
>>> The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
>>> and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri
>>> from around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and
>>> further that the change benefits a particular theological
>>> viewpoint.....the objective text critic then rejects the change. That's
>>> an oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
>>
>> That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based
>> on unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is
>> made when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically
>> replicated in every subsequent copy forever,
>
> Yes. But the branch where that error occurred can be traced.
> And compared to other MSSs, the original text can be reconstructed.
True... but only if said originals are avaiable, which they are not.
> Again : Forget "truth" or "honesty".
> We can just intelligently guess, what the original text said.
Agreed.. apart from 'guessing the original'. Not an easy matter. Reading
between the lines would perhaps help, but nothing can be certain - rather
important when staking the fate of one's eternal soul on something, don't
you think?
>> no matter how many are made - or how carefully and honestly reproduced.
>> The originals have gone missing - why?
>
> Warfare, shifting borders, the Jewish wars, bedouins using the MSSs for
> lighting
> fires and wiping their asses... - The list is endless.
It doesn't really matter. I just suggested that (as originals) these would
surely have been viewed as 'relics' of the greatest importance, considering
the way early churchmen behaved reguarding bits of the cross, nails, saintly
fingers/toes/skulld/foreskins etc etc.... surely not binned once neatly
copied out?
>> What could be more precious?
>>
>> That's 4-0 at least... half time?
>>
> Not really.
Full time then... it wasn't me who mentioned 'game'!
>>> this is not the 'infallible
>>>> word of God',
>>>
>>> never claimed it was.
>>
>> Very wise Larry!
>>
> Ah, you finally get the point ?
Eh? It doesn't take a genius to work that out...
>>> it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>>>> by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>>>> cofusing and contradictory lump.
>>>
>>> So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
>>> just because of that.
>>
>> I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception. No need
>> for that, even if I did wish to 'rubbish the Bible' - which I don't.
>> There is no need.
>>
> I'm not so sure in your case. Instead of looking at the book without
> passion and regarding it as just a historical source, you argue against
> theological instead of historical points.
But the two go together, can you not see? I can see that the Bible is
historically innacurate, as can you, and sometimes grow rather tired with
the idiots (and there are quite a few still) who claim it is. I wish to
bring light into their darkness shall we say... almost a duty.
> <snip>
>>> Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts and
>>> what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they may or
>>> may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites enthusiastic
>>> acceptance of your "observations."
>>
>> But you appear to 'believe' rather than analyse, consider and weigh up
>> the evidence. Do you have faith in the early censors and editors of the
>> Bible? I don't, and nor would any other reputable historian.
>>
> Show me the early censors and editors (see my other post).
Now that I cannot do, as you very well know. Show me that it was honestly
and correctly compiled, translated and copied... pointless demands. There is
some contemporary post and surviving communications that give clues, yet
nothing concrete, and few names (not that they would be any use).
Fortunately, you only need to read the Boble to appreciate how vague, flawed
and inconsistent it is - the amazing thing is that some still believe it to
be the Word of God today!
> All you've shown so far is a heavy dislike for (organized) religion.
> Nothing wrong with that, but that's not a historical discussion.
No, but that dislike (which i don't deny) is based on historical study,
research and knowledge - facts. I know I am not alone too...
Cheers
Martin
Martin
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:18:52 +0100, "Martin"
> <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> you believe that Jesus knew in advance that he was going to be
>>> crucified).
>>
>>He never wrote anything down of course, not so much as a laundry list.
>
> that I think is fairly convincing. In it Jesus exposes lots of
> dirty laundry. I just have to consult Mel Gibson on some of the
> finer details of the Aramaic. (He owes me one for my help with
> the Scots in Braveheart.)
>
> I'm hoping that I will be able to sell the Jesus Diaries to
> someone like Dick Fuld (now what would the Reverend Spooner
> have made of a name like that?) so that he can donate it to the
> ever-willing suckers at Yale to add to their growing library of
> forgeries.
Blast! Beaten to it again ... have you tried the Daily Mail?
Larry Swain
> On Oct 14, 1:30 pm, Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>Martin wrote:
>
>
>> The Bible has been passed down via
>>
>>
>>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>>
>>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>>
>
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> What scribe would have a potent interest in changing the outcome of a
> battle described by Thucydides?
But there are some significant problems in the transmission history of
Thucydides's text, including interpolations.
>
> What monk would be motivated to long ruminate a clever interpolation
> to Polybius account of the Second Punic War?
And yet there are interpolations and errors of significance in the
Polybius manuscripts and excerpta.
>
> Yet it's quite easy to understand why a monk certainly added an
> account of the Resurrection to Mark (Mark 16:9-20 ),
Well, first, the resurrection in Mark is in 16:1-8. Verses 9-20 are
well known to be later and by a different author, and certainly not
contained in all manuscripts or copies, as even the early Christians
discuss. Nothing atypical of ancient texts here: error, interpolation,
manuscript traditions.....
<snipped>
> It is then quite incorrect to assume that "every other text from the
> ancient and medieval worlds" has undergone the same scrutiny,
> consideration, and transformation as the Christian religious texts,
> for which establishing credibility has been a vital interest -- and
> difficulty -- of their keepers: The Church.
On the one hand, no of course not all texts have undergone the same
scrutiny. Thucydides, for example, exists in but 10 manuscripts all
dated to the ninth century and after; Polybius' first five books, the
only ones complete, exist in only 5 manuscripts. To that we add
citations and quotations by other authors, the scholiasts, etc. By
contrast the number of Biblical manuscripts and papyri number in the
thousands, and to that we add the same material translated into multiple
languages early on, plus the citations and quotations of authors who
quote the texts (regardless of their orthodoxy as perceived by some
group--the text critic is interested in establishing the text). So
quite right, we have much better bases for most of the texts collected
in the Bible than we do any other ancient text. Further, unlike say
Thucydides where we have to wait 1200 years after the author wrote his
text before we get a copy (and add a few more centuries if we're talking
about a complete copy of Homer's works), we have papyri going back to
100-200 CE of the some Biblical texts, less than a century after
composition.
As for whether anyone has "transformed" the Biblical text, individual
examples exist that sometimes extend over a text family, but fortunately
since we have such a large base from which to work, those changes may be
noted and rejected by the modern textual critic. The texts of the Bible
are no different than any other ancient text: scribes change the text
they touch sometimes by design, more often by accident, and the modern
text critic tries to establish a text that is as close to the original
as humanly possible.
te...@tiglath.net
> te...@tiglath.net wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:30 pm, Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> >>Martin wrote:
>
> >> The Bible has been passed down via
>
> >>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>
> >>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>
> > Absolutely not.
>
> > What scribe would have a potent interest in changing the outcome of a
> > battle described by Thucydides?
>
> But there are some significant problems in the transmission history of
> Thucydides's text, including interpolations.
>
>
I never said there are no interpolations in ancient manuscript. With
Thucydides in particular we are lucky that Karl Maurer expanded his
dissertation on the subject into a book.
In it, he puts the interpolations in Thucydides under two categories:
unconscious and conscious.
The first kind consists of mechanical errors of several subtypes
irrelevant to my point.
The second kind, you will find, are not of the nature I refer to with
Mark 16:9-20.
Maurer divides conscious interpolations in Thucydides in:
"(1) Deliberate insertions as aids to the reader," which he qualifies
as, "fairly rare and less important."
'(2) "Emendations" by copyist or correctors of passages that seemed to
them, and indeed sometimes were, corrupt.'
[Quoted from
Maurer, K., "Interpolation in Thucydides" 1995, pp. 5-7, BRILL]
Reasonably, Maurer notes that for such emendations to be considered
interpolations both the mechanics of the error and the motive of the
interpolator must be intelligible.
Looking at several examples confirms what I knew all along: that the
motives of the interpolator was not outright, fraudulent invention to
advance an agenda; corrections were simply stopgap measures to fill
blanks to the best of copier's ability towards and not away from
things Thucydidean.
So I ask again: What scribe would have a potent interest in changing
the outcome of a battle described by Thucydides?
Have I explained clearly enough that I am not referring to the
"problems of transmission"?
In Thucydides the equivalent interpolation to Mark 16:9-20 would be
one telling us that the Athenians had defeated the Spartans, so that
today we would be using "Athenian" to refer to a frugal, militaristic,
and warlike society.
Which would be FAR more modest than the manifest purpose of the
interpolator of Mark 16:9-20: no less than to prove Jesus, a man, was
actually a god.
Ditto for Polybius.
In sum in biblical text we have a union of all the causes for error
afflicting every other ancient text that survived, and in addition the
deliberate alterations from copiers with a religious agenda.
The fact that we don't have to worry about the latter in Thucydides or
Polybius means clearly that biblical scripture is by no means like,
"every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds."
>
>
>
> > Yet it's quite easy to understand why a monk certainly added an
> > account of the Resurrection to Mark (Mark 16:9-20 ),
>
> Well, first, the resurrection in Mark is in 16:1-8.
I meant The Ascension, my mistake.
> Verses 9-20 are
> well known to be later and by a different author, and certainly not
> contained in all manuscripts or copies, as even the early Christians
> discuss. Nothing atypical of ancient texts here: error, interpolation,
> manuscript traditions.....
>
But isn't that precisely the point?
That interpolation is in no way similar to those in Thucydides. It
single-handedly creates one of Christianity's main doctrinal tenets:
The Ascension, no less.
Again: Why would a monk be motivated to change Thucydides narrative
other than to make it better or clearer? No reason.
Why would a monk be motivated to make a resurrected Jesus ascend to
Heaven to sit on God's right? Lots of reasons: to validate that he
was devoting his life to a true god, to save souls, etc.
There is a similar interpolation from the 14th century which provides
scriptural evidence for the Trinity, the human confection at Nicea (1
John 5:7,8). Can you find a parallel in Thucydides where a main
tenet of the story is bluntly fabricated?
The point you insists in ignoring is that the texts of the Bible were
subjected to forces others were not, forces that compel a scribe
copying a text containing the very reason for being what he is, God's
servant 24x7. He'll go with Mark an extra mile he will not go with
Polybius, because in the end he has not stake in what happened to
Carthage, whereas buttressing the faith of his readership is more than
a job, it's a moral duty.
The fact that we are able to discern some such alterations (but surely
not all) because we can cross-reference a massive amount of fragments
and references, does not alter the fact that the text WERE subjected
to additional distortion because of their nature, and because most of
the text copiers and editors were clerics.
The difference you miss or ignore is not small either. It's the
difference between adding a paragraph to explain a difficult idiom, or
add it to save countless souls.
Larry Swain
> On Oct 14, 4:00 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good Post!
>
>
> On the contrary. It's quietly abusive and often wrong. See below.
Au contraire, it is neither. See below.
>
>
>
>>--
>>DSH
>
>
>
>
>>>>I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what
>>>>we know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>
>>>You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've
>>>grossly misunderstood the situation.
>>
>
> That appears like an effective rebuttal, but it's fluff. Martin is
> correct.
No he isn't. For one thing, "early" and "Bible" don't go together in
the same sentence, the "Bible" is a much later construct, and even then
it was referred to as "the Scriptures" (i. e. the writings), or as the
bibliotecha, the library, a collection. So to claim that "the Bible"
was early on censored and selectively edited is simply wrong. For
another thing, one might claim that certain papyri or certain copies
were edited or censored, but since there was not such thing as a central
authority; so some authors or authorities may decry something, or a
scribe may make changes in what he is copying, but neither one affects
the whole system....its rather like the 'Net ten years ago or so....lots
of redundancy, lots of decentralization, etc. So again, the most Martin
could claim (and he does not so claim) is that certain isolated
instances of editing and censorship occurred, that's it.
>
> This is what the eminent Christian historian Paul Johnson has to say
> about it in his 'History of the Jews'.
Well, first, Paul Johnson isn't an eminent Christian historian. He's a
journalist who likes history and very ably has written popular history
books on a number of subjects. He's described his process as reading
everything he could in secondary literature about a subject and
distilling what he needed. He's a great read, but hardly a scholar of
the subject in question, much less an "eminent Christian historian."
Not sure about his religious leanings, so it is of no interest to me
whether he's Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Shinto.
Second, the quotation comes from history of Christianity, not his
History of the Jews. If one were less generous than I, one might claim
that you have "selectively edited" the text....
> "When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying
> jungle of scholarly contradictions. All where writing evangelism
> rather
> than history. [he is just being kind, read "fancy tales" instead of
> "true
> narrative]."
Disagree with your editorializing....but as to Johnson's point, so what?
Entirely agree with Johnson. There's no such thing in the ancient
world, even among the historians, as a work without a distinct point of
view.
>
> He continues, "...all the documents have a long pre-history before
> they
> reached the written form....
Actually not true. Some do, depending on how one reads the background
of the gospels for instance (i. e. since Johnson first wrote in 1978, a
school of thought has arisen that argues that Mark for example was a
Christianized version of Homer or that Mark pretty much invented the
whole thing, and Matthew and Luke simply took Mark and expanded him. On
such view, there can be little pre-history); others however do not, such
as Paul's epistles for example which seem to go directly from Paul's
dictation to papyrus to copy, virtually no pre-history. The claim of
"all" cannot be sustained.
The canonical documents thus overlap with
> the
> earliest writing of the Church Fathers.
Depends on dating, which is uncertain for some of those "earliest Church
Fathers", but true in the main.
They are the products of the
> early
> Church and they are tainted in the sense that they reflect
> ecclesisatical
> controversy as well as evangelical motivation, the difficulties of
> reducing
> oral descriptions of mysterious concepts to writing, and a variety of
> linguistic traps. The possibilites for misunderstanding are infinite.
> "
Indeed, but certainly doesn't address the question that Martin raised or
that I responded to.
>
> "Tainted in the sense that they reflect [...] evangelical motivation,"
> would comprise original falsehoods and later additions.
Now you're engaging in the very thing that you are criticizing the early
Christian scribes of doing: editorializing and allowing your editorial
commentary on Johnson's text to become part of the text.
>
>
>
>>>Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically
>>>based.
>
>
> Pulling rank is not an argument.
I didn't pull rank. I noted the difference between acting or
approaching the subject as an historian, and acting or approaching the
subject as someone with a religious point of view that is need of
justification. Martin, and you, are doing the latter.
Just because Martin is not an
> academic historian it doesn't nullify his argument.
Indeed. Its nullified because his argument is religious in nature, I'm
not discussing religion except as an historical movement. I don't care
about it being right, left, up, down, inspired, or the root of the
world's ills. Martin quite evidently does.
>
>
>
>>>The historian doesn't make such claims.
>
>
> Indeed he does. See above. There are several ways to say a source
> is unreliably and that its record lends it little trust.
Indeed, see above: 1) Johnson isn't an historian and 2) doesn't address
the issue raised. 3) gets information wrong. The situation is far
better and far worse than either of you are aware of.
>
>
>>>Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance
>>>of slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter
>>>to Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in
>>>the canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and
>>>isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just
>>>becomes an argument from silence then.
>>
>
> It does not. It becomes a Sin of Omission.
"sin" is a religious value, not part of history except in describing the
history of ideas. It has no place in this discussion. It is also
anachronistic.
>
> The Argumentum ad Silentio doesn't apply here.
Certainly it does. You can't say Jesus is "for" slavery since he didn't
address the issue directly. Martin isn't just criticizing his silence,
nor his actual, stated views but that Jesus doesn't condemn slavery.
That's an argument from silence.
Especially since Jesus
> Father, whose decrees Jesus is not to deny, makes it quite clear that
> slavery if fine.
Religious statements, not historical ones.
> The New Testament doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Never claimed it did. In fact, if you look above at what I wrote,
you'll find: True, Jesus in >>>the canonicals seems to accept slavery as
a part of his world, and>>>isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning
it...." Jesus and the NT writers were a part of their world;
criticizing them for being anything else is just plain idiotic.
> You either make the analysis of Jesus as a man, or as the divine,
> moral-code-giving Messiah, make up your mind.
I have, and if you bother to read what I wrote, you'll find that I've
quite explicit about it on more than one occasion. Just for the record,
though, you've conflated a number of things: being "divine" isn't
necessarily a quality that means he wasn't a man in the eyes of the
ancient world(see Augustus or Nero), nor is a "moral-code giver"
necessarily divine or a Messiah, nor is a Messiah, or even THE Messiah,
necessarily divine or a moral-code giver. Also just for the record, I
approach this as Jesus being a man.
> As a man his silence on slavery is natural;
Yep, so citing it as a problem in a discussion on history seems
anachronistic to me.
it was part of the
> societal fabric of the time. But as the latter, it's a disqualifying
> omission for an eternal god, who is supposed to be the source of
> morality.
Unless of course God doesn't think it immoral......
>
>
>>>Then erroneous ones.
>>
>>> The Bible has been passed down via
>>>
>>>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>>
>>>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>>
>
> This is plain wrong as explained elsewhere and as Paul Johnson's
> passage shows.
No, it is plain right as explained elsewhere and as Johnson's passage
certainly does not show.
Most ancient texts have had a very quiet life
> compared to Christian scripture.
You're confused. There are few and isolated instances, none of which
have become part of the critical text or affected all of Christianity.
From the sheer proportions of Christian biblical texts in comparison to
anything else, the Christian biblical texts display a greater degree of
faithfulness overall.
A historian would should know
> that.
Should know something that's wrong...I do know you're wrong and have
read a book and drawn erroneous conclusions. At least you read the book.
>
>
>>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>
>>>Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct.
>
>
> Here Martin gets unfairly abused for using "The Bible" correctly.
Nope. He used the Bible correctly, however he started off talking about
early Christian texts. They aren't the same thing, especially if you
want to talk about "early" editorial activity. Someone who's claiming
to correct me ought to know that.
As for the collection known as the Bible having "contradictions" in it,
so what?
> Why refer to the Bible by its parts if one thinks that all of it
> suffers from the same problem of unreliability, even when different
> parts cause doubt in different ways?
Because "all of it" doesn't so suffer, and the historian doesn't treat
these texts as if they were all the same. Only the zealot does so,
whether zeal for the faith or zeal against it.
>
>
>
>
>> > The
>>
>>>objective historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke,
>>>John, Thomas, Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that
>>>the names are just names.....
>
>
> This is more rank-pulling. Wholly unnecessary showing off.
Encouraging accuracy in the discussion is showing off?
>
> An after dealing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Philip,
> Judas, etc., the historian may well realize, as many have, that the
> New Testament is riddled with uncertainties, contradictions, and
> reliability problems, which happen to be the same ills as the Old
> Testament, which means the the whole Bible is just an exercise in
> "anything goes," with a bit here and there that passes muster.
Much depends on the questions you ask and what information you want to
get. You have a tendency to see an "error" and then conclude that all
the texts are wrong, which says something to you about religious faith
and those who have it....just as those of the faith generally seize on
something that is "right" and conclude therefore that the whole is and
that that says something about religious faith. Both directions are
wrong if one is doing history or even literary interpretation.
>
>
>
>>>Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts
>>>and what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they
>>>may or may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites
>>>enthusiastic acceptance of your "observations."
>
>
> Off the mark again. The historians' objective conclusions matter only
> because they represent what's agreed by those who investigate and its
> potential utility in guiding the decision of whether to believe the
> texts or not.
Way off the mark. For one thing, Martin is talking about a completely
different kind of belief in the texts than what an historian talks
about. Second, each text is measured on its own merits, and even
sections within the text...whether were talking texts later collected in
the Bible or Tacitus or Polybius or what have you. No throwing babies
out with bathwater.
It's the END PRODUCT of what historians do and
> conclude.
No, actually the end product of what historians do is reconstruct
history as best we are able. That's our end product, not whether or not
you believe a text or not.
In fact, the very reason we are discussing those text and
> not something more fun like Suetonius, is that imperial gossip if far
> less important than the question of whether the Christian texts have
> any truth in them,
Not really, that may be why *you* are discussing these texts, but isn't
the reason I am.
for if they do, we REALLY should embrace Jesus and
> drop everything else, and if they don't we should stop praying to the
> wallpaper.
Non sequitur.
te...@tiglath.net
>
>
> > This is what the eminent Christian historian Paul Johnson has to say
> > about it in his 'History of the Jews'.
>
> Well, first, Paul Johnson isn't an eminent Christian historian. He's a
> journalist who likes history and very ably has written popular history
> books on a number of subjects.
He is Most Certainly a Historian, AND journalist, AND author.
Check your facts.
I can't believe the gall of this poster... Paul Johnson has written
many HISTORY BOOKS of breathtaking range and depth, and just because
his books are popular it doesn't mean he can't be a historian and a
scholar.
Your idea of a historian must be some dusty character who writes
narrow monographs and knows you.
He is Most Certainly Eminent. His HISTORY BOOKS earned him the
highest civilian honor this country bestows
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061215-1.html
"The struggle between freedom and tyranny has defined the past hundred
years, and few have written of that struggle with greater skill than
Paul Johnson. His book, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to
the Eighties, is a masterful account of the grievous harm visited on
millions by ideologies of power and coercion. In all his writings,
Paul Johnson shows great breadth of knowledge and moral clarity, and a
deep understanding of the challenges of our time. He's written
hundreds of articles and dozens of books, including The History of the
Jews, The History of Christianity, The Quest for God, and The Birth of
the Modern. Obviously, the man is not afraid to take on big subjects.
(Laughter.)
"Eight years ago he published A History of the American People, which,
Henry Kissinger said, was "as majestic... in scope as the country it
celebrates." In the preface, Paul Johnson called Americans "the most
remarkable people the world has ever seen." He said, "I love them and
I salute them." That's a high tribute from a man of such learning and
wisdom. And America returns the feeling. Our country honors Paul
Johnson, and proudly calls him a friend."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061215-1.html
> He's described his process as reading
> everything he could in secondary literature about a subject and
> distilling what he needed. He's a great read, but hardly a scholar of
> the subject in question, much less an "eminent Christian historian."
> Not sure about his religious leanings, so it is of no interest to me
> whether he's Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Shinto.
>
There he goes again. He is a Christian historian both because he is
a historian who happens to be Catholic, and because he wrote a History
of Christianity.
It's a free country and you may find fault with his method all you
want, but to deny Paul Johnson is a historian is ludicrous, or maybe
worse: envy.
> Second, the quotation comes from history of Christianity,
> not his History of the Jews.
You are right. I read both years ago and I sometimes I don't
remember which one has what, and I don't carry them with me.
> If one were less generous than I, one might claim
> that you have "selectively edited" the text....
If so, it was not deliberate; I copied that text from an post in the
archives I wrote eight years ago because I did not have the book with
me. But now I have the book on the table and I will check...
I posted this:
-----
"When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying
jungle of scholarly contradictions. All where writing evangelism
rather
than history. [he is just being kind, read "fancy tales" instead of
"true
narrative]."
He continues, "...all the documents have a long pre-history before
they
reached the written form.... The canonical documents thus overlap with
the
earliest writing of the Church Fathers. They are the products of the
early
Church and they are tainted in the sense that they reflect
ecclesisatical
controversy as well as evangelical motivation, the difficulties of
reducing
oral descriptions of mysterious concepts to writing, and a variety of
linguistic traps. The possibilites for misunderstanding are infinite.
"
-------
Page 22.
I see the following differences:
Johnson wrote:
"All were writing evangelism and theology rather than history."
I wrote:
"All were writing evangelism rather than history."
Johnson wrote:
"The canonical documents (let alone those later judged apochryphal)
thus overlap with the earliest writing of the Church Fathers."
I wrote:
"The canonical documents thus overlap with the earliest writing of the
Church Fathers."
I did not put ellipsis after "linguistic traps," to mark the omission
for brevity of a long sentence giving example of such traps.
Your generosity is then misplaced. In no way the omission change the
sense and meaning of what Johnson is saying.
>
> > "When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying
> > jungle of scholarly contradictions. All where writing evangelism
> > rather
> > than history. [he is just being kind, read "fancy tales" instead of
> > "true
> > narrative]."
>
> Disagree with your editorializing....
That must mean you believe that the New Testament is a true
narrative.
I'd like to see you support that notion.
> but as to Johnson's point, so what?
> Entirely agree with Johnson. There's no such thing in the ancient
> world, even among the historians, as a work without a distinct point of
> view.
The poster AGAIN lumps all the ancient world texts into a hotch-potch
as unreliable as the gospels.
Why is it, I wonder, that he can't see the marked difference between
the doubt we ought to accord to say, the events recounted by Caesar in
Gaul, and the doubt we accord to the events described by Mark, Luke,
Mathew, and John.
>
>
> > He continues, "...all the documents have a long pre-history before
> > they
> > reached the written form....
>
> Actually not true. Some do, depending on how one reads the background
> of the gospels for instance (i. e. since Johnson first wrote in 1978, a
> school of thought has arisen that argues that Mark for example was a
> Christianized version of Homer or that Mark pretty much invented the
> whole thing,
Larry is inclined to stand on confident extremes on matters where
certainty should be a very infrequent visitor. Not the hallmark of a
historian.
A historian doesn't say "Actually not true," unless he has something
close to mathematical disproof. There may very well be a new school
of thought in biblical scholarship, but it's no less a journey into
the opaque than trying to discern what sources Mark may have used.
> and Matthew and Luke simply took Mark and expanded him. On
> such view, there can be little pre-history); others however do not, such
> as Paul's epistles for example which seem to go directly from Paul's
> dictation to papyrus to copy, virtually no pre-history. The claim of
> "all" cannot be sustained.
>
You are loading the dice. You can only refute Johnson if you if you
assign the gospel truth to the new simplistic speculations you dignify
as a school of thought.
Johnson prefaces his paragraph with "When we turn to the earliest
Christian sources, we enter a terrifying jungle of scholarly
contradictions."
Which means that he is aware that no one really knows what's going on
but that doesn't stop many from taking a stab at it -- and he is one
of them. It seems that the situation is not likely to improve any
time soon.
>
> Indeed, but certainly doesn't address the question that Martin raised or
> that I responded to.
They do. It indicates that there is little, if any, solid ground on
the subject, much as a whole edifice, in fact a nation if you count
the Vatican, has been built on the shaky ground.
>
>
>
> > "Tainted in the sense that they reflect [...] evangelical motivation,"
> > would comprise original falsehoods and later additions.
>
> Now you're engaging in the very thing that you are criticizing the early
> Christian scribes of doing: editorializing and allowing your editorial
> commentary on Johnson's text to become part of the text.
>
I use square brackets to precisely not do that. Can't you see them?
It's conventional usage.
>
>
> >>>Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically
> >>>based.
>
> > Pulling rank is not an argument.
>
> I didn't pull rank. I noted the difference between acting or
> approaching the subject as an historian, and acting or approaching the
> subject as someone with a religious point of view that is need of
> justification. Martin, and you, are doing the latter.
>
I have no religious point of view whatsoever. I merely inquire for
the extraordinary evidence, that extraordinary claims require in order
to have any support. And in addition, your claim that the biblical
text are no different than other ancient tests when it comes to
reliability is seriously flawed for reasons I've very clearly given
and you keep ignoring.
> Just because Martin is not an
>
> > academic historian it doesn't nullify his argument.
>
> Indeed. Its nullified because his argument is religious in nature, I'm
> not discussing religion except as an historical movement. I don't care
> about it being right, left, up, down, inspired, or the root of the
> world's ills. Martin quite evidently does.
>
>
You should care, from the academic point of view. The fact that
scripture tries to sell you the invisible HAS HAD a bearing on it's
historical trajectory. It has subjected it to "marketing"
manipulations non-religious text have been spared. And that is a
historical issue, not religious.
>
>
> >>>Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance
> >>>of slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter
> >>>to Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in
> >>>the canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and
> >>>isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just
> >>>becomes an argument from silence then.
>
> > It does not. It becomes a Sin of Omission.
>
> "sin" is a religious value, not part of history except in describing the
> history of ideas. It has no place in this discussion. It is also
> anachronistic.
>
Gee, can't you read in context? Sin has a non-theological meaning
too. Grab a dictionary.
Here it means, a Violation of Omission.
>
>
> > The Argumentum ad Silentio doesn't apply here.
>
> Certainly it does. You can't say Jesus is "for" slavery since he didn't
> address the issue directly.
More on that later.
> Martin isn't just criticizing his silence,
> nor his actual, stated views but that Jesus doesn't condemn slavery.
> That's an argument from silence.
A simplistic analysis that leaves out essential elements of the
situation.
This is an irrefutable argument from silence:
Joe the Plumber: I know who will win the election.
Larry King: Who?
Joe the Plumber: I'm not telling you!
Larry King: You're just saying that because you don't know!
What we are dealing here has OTHER essential elements you seem quite
happy to leave out even after I mentioned them.
Jesus is OUR SAVIOR, he is one branch of the God who is the source of
morality.
That creates an expectation, if not a duty in a merciful god, to
address the suffering of the large part of humanity enslaved.
It's a GLARING OMISSION in his moral teachings. A silent THAT
deafening is not the mute vacuum the Argument form Silence refers
to.
Slavery can be tolerated, not tolerated, or not addressed. A man has
the luxury to not address it. The Source of Morality does not, thus
silence betokens assent.
Learn the difference.
And what silence are you talking about after all?
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes."
-- Luke 12:47
That is part of The Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant parable from
Jesus. It's all about slavery taken for granted. Jesus tacitly
accepts the order of things and the beating of slaves. What more
endorsement do you need?
(Don't be confused by the word "servant" folks. Jesus is talking
about masters and slaves (douloi), not employees. Translators like to
soften it to "servant". The problem we've been talking about,
precisely. You don't get modern translations involving Roman or Greek
slaves where they are called "servants." Why? But the MOTIVATION is
there in bible translations. That's a force that has been in place
since the outset. )
"But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold,
with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be
made."
-- Matthew 18:25
There you are. Martins was right after all.
>
> it was part of the
>
> > societal fabric of the time. But as the latter, it's a disqualifying
> > omission for an eternal god, who is supposed to be the source of
> > morality.
>
> Unless of course God doesn't think it immoral......
>
We are using the same source of morality today, and we believe slavery
is immoral.
You keep running into the difficulty of pushing asunder that which
belongs together.
The Jesus of the Gospels is God, ignore at your peril.
>
> Most ancient texts have had a very quiet life
>
> > compared to Christian scripture.
>
> You're confused.
I understand it quite clearly. Show me interpolations in Thucydides,
for example, that had consequences to the whole narrative equivalent
to the interpolations in scripture that had the deepest doctrinal
consequences. Start with Mathews translating 'almah' as 'virgin,'
then the Ascension, and finally the Trinity.
Unless you can do that, we have at least one important ancient text
that had a very quiet life compared to Christian scripture. Let's
see.
>
> > Here Martin gets unfairly abused for using "The Bible" correctly.
>
> Nope. He used the Bible correctly, however he started off talking about
> early Christian texts. They aren't the same thing, especially if you
> want to talk about "early" editorial activity. Someone who's claiming
> to correct me ought to know that.
The consequences of early editorial activity, even if not all of them,
are reflected in the bible. It's as simple as that.
>
> As for the collection known as the Bible having "contradictions" in it,
> so what?
>
> > Why refer to the Bible by its parts if one thinks that all of it
> > suffers from the same problem of unreliability, even when different
> > parts cause doubt in different ways?
>
> Because "all of it" doesn't so suffer, and the historian doesn't treat
> these texts as if they were all the same.
Did you not read, "even when different parts cause doubt in different
ways?"
Dennis
> Lege, Sape, Disce. (LSD)
That sounds like the Mutus Liber.
>
> Numquam Discere Desiste.
Put it or shut up, in other words.
Dennis
Jack Linthicum
> Jesus Christ was a smart religious leader who understood the
> importance of attracting CAPITAL and proven MONEYMAKERS to his
> ENTERPRISE.
>
> Ergo he was a CAPITALIST -- in the truest sense of the word.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
> -----------------------------
>
> Version: KJV
>
> Matthew 25
>
> 1. Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
> took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2. And five
> of them were wise, and five [were] foolish.
>
> 3. They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with
> them: 4. But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
>
> 5. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
>
> 6. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
> cometh; go ye out to meet him.
>
> 7. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8. And the
> foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are
> gone out. 9. But the wise answered, saying, [Not so]; lest there be
> not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy
> for yourselves.
>
> 10. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that
> were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
>
> 11. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open
> to us. 12. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you
> not.
>
> 13. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
> the Son of man cometh.
>
> 14. For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far
> country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them
> his goods.
>
> 15. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another
> one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway
> took his journey.
>
> 16. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with
> the same, and made [them] other five talents. 17. And likewise he that
> [had received] two, he also gained other two.
>
> 18. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid
> his lord's money.
>
> 19. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth
> with them. 20. And so he that had received five talents came and
> brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me
> five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
>
> 21. His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful
> servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make
> thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
>
> 22. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou
> deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other
> talents beside them.
>
> 23. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou
> hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
> things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
>
> 24. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I
> knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not
> sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25. And I was
> afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou
> hast [that is] thine.
>
> 26. His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and
> slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and
> gather where I have not strawed: 27. Thou oughtest therefore to
> have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming
> I should have received mine own with usury.
>
> 28. Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto
> him which hath ten talents. 29. For unto every one that hath shall be
> given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall
> be taken away even that which he hath.
>
> 30. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there
> shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
> ------------------------
>
> Jesus and Donald Trump -- both Capitalists -- who knew when to fire an
> unprofitable assistant.
>
> Praise The Lord...
>
> And pass the biscuits.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
> See also:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_talent> -- [Unsourced]
I guess that brings up the old Jesus in the Temple with the
Moneylenders bit, then
http://www.bible-history.com/gentile_court/TEMPLECOURTJesus_and_the_Temple.htm
Jack Linthicum
> The Parable Of The Talents...
>
> Yes...
You said that and it still misses the point on the Jesus and the
moneylenders
http://www.bible-history.com/gentile_court/TEMPLECOURTJesus_and_the_Temple.htm
Martin
> te...@tiglath.net wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 4:00 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Good Post!
>>
>>
>> On the contrary. It's quietly abusive and often wrong. See below.
>
> Au contraire, it is neither. See below.
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>DSH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what
>>>>>we know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>>
>>>>You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've
>>>>grossly misunderstood the situation.
>>>
>>
>> That appears like an effective rebuttal, but it's fluff. Martin is
>> correct.
>
> No he isn't. For one thing, "early" and "Bible" don't go together in the
> same sentence, the "Bible" is a much later construct, and even then it was
> referred to as "the Scriptures" (i. e. the writings), or as the
> bibliotecha, the library, a collection.
Okay, so I left out the words "versions" and "of" - I thought they were
unnecessay, obviously not.
> So to claim that "the Bible" was early on censored and selectively edited
> is simply wrong.
It was no claim, but a statement... and one that *cannot* be disproven. Nor
can it be 'proven', but if you weigh up the known facts, consider the know
circumstances in which the bible was cobbled together, why such cobbling was
done, and by whom, the likelihood and probabilty that this occured becomes
obvious. Add to that the persons and peoples it was designed to please, and
I at least reckon there can be little reason to doubt that statement is
correct.
> For another thing, one might claim that certain papyri or certain copies
> were edited or censored, but since there was not such thing as a central
> authority; so some authors or authorities may decry something, or a scribe
> may make changes in what he is copying, but neither one affects the whole
> system....its rather like the 'Net ten years ago or so....lots of
> redundancy, lots of decentralization, etc.
Yet reliable (*provably* reliable) archives do exist. That is not the case
with ancient manuscripts on which the Bible as we know it is based - they
didn't even keep the gospels!
> So again, the most Martin could claim (and he does not so claim) is that
> certain isolated instances of editing and censorship occurred, that's it.
No, I don't need to 'claim' - the probabilty it happened outweighs any
doubts in my mind mind it did not.
>> This is what the eminent Christian historian Paul Johnson has to say
>> about it in his 'History of the Jews'.
>
> Well, first, Paul Johnson isn't an eminent Christian historian.
Are you questioning the honesty and veracity of any historian investigating
the Bible, who is not a card-carrying Christian?
> He's a journalist who likes history and very ably has written popular
> history books on a number of subjects. He's described his process as
> reading everything he could in secondary literature about a subject and
> distilling what he needed.
Admirable... though (if possible) we should always 'go back to basics'...
> He's a great read, but hardly a scholar of the subject in question, much
> less an "eminent Christian historian."
Nor am I, but I just *know* that my opinion(s) are more objective and
accurate than most self-proclaimed 'experts' and 'historians' when it comes
to the subject of the Bible! The Web is full of ignorant, superstitious,
bigoted preachers and dishonest organisations (there are no other words),
with websites announcing and proclaiming a pack of lies, some quite
seductive and beautifully presented. These are not educational resources,
they are shamefully corrupt.
> Not sure about his religious leanings, so it is of no interest to me
> whether he's Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Shinto.
Glad to hear it... religious prejudices and obediences have NO PLACE in the
objective examination and analysis of historical documents and events! The
same goes for political affiliations, and personal tastes.
> Second, the quotation comes from history of Christianity, not his History
> of the Jews. If one were less generous than I, one might claim that you
> have "selectively edited" the text....
>
>> "When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying
>> jungle of scholarly contradictions. All where writing evangelism
>> rather
>> than history. [he is just being kind, read "fancy tales" instead of
>> "true
>> narrative]."
>
> Disagree with your editorializing....but as to Johnson's point, so what?
> Entirely agree with Johnson. There's no such thing in the ancient world,
> even among the historians, as a work without a distinct point of view.
>>
>> He continues, "...all the documents have a long pre-history before
>> they
>> reached the written form....
>
> Actually not true. Some do, depending on how one reads the background of
> the gospels for instance (i. e. since Johnson first wrote in 1978, a
> school of thought has arisen that argues that Mark for example was a
> Christianized version of Homer or that Mark pretty much invented the whole
> thing, and Matthew and Luke simply took Mark and expanded him. On such
> view, there can be little pre-history); others however do not, such as
> Paul's epistles for example which seem to go directly from Paul's
> dictation to papyrus to copy, virtually no pre-history. The claim of
> "all" cannot be sustained.
Hmmm... and to think I was accused of using 'red-herrings'...
> The canonical documents thus overlap with
>> the
>> earliest writing of the Church Fathers.
>
> Depends on dating, which is uncertain for some of those "earliest Church
> Fathers", but true in the main.
>
> They are the products of the
>> early
>> Church and they are tainted in the sense that they reflect
>> ecclesisatical
>> controversy as well as evangelical motivation, the difficulties of
>> reducing
>> oral descriptions of mysterious concepts to writing, and a variety of
>> linguistic traps. The possibilites for misunderstanding are infinite.
>> "
>
> Indeed, but certainly doesn't address the question that Martin raised or
> that I responded to.
Er.... which one was that?
>> "Tainted in the sense that they reflect [...] evangelical motivation,"
>> would comprise original falsehoods and later additions.
>
> Now you're engaging in the very thing that you are criticizing the early
> Christian scribes of doing: editorializing and allowing your editorial
> commentary on Johnson's text to become part of the text.
Tut tut... so even today, there is doubt... even when it's all plainly
written down, for the whole world to see (literally!) only hours before. Yet
still it is procliamed that the four canonical gospels are the truly
unaltered and accurate accounts of MML&J, the first hand witnesses to the
life and death of Jesus. Okay...
>>>>Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically
>>>>based.
>>
>>
>> Pulling rank is not an argument.
>
> I didn't pull rank. I noted the difference between acting or approaching
> the subject as an historian, and acting or approaching the subject as
> someone with a religious point of view that is need of justification.
> Martin, and you, are doing the latter.
>
> Just because Martin is not an
>> academic historian it doesn't nullify his argument.
Ahem! I thought I was better than that? An academic... dear me...
> Indeed. Its nullified because his argument is religious in nature, I'm
> not discussing religion except as an historical movement. I don't care
> about it being right, left, up, down, inspired, or the root of the world's
> ills. Martin quite evidently does.
You are entirely wrong here. My argument is not 'religious in nature', it is
merely a matter of reason, common sense and (most importanly) honest
objectivity.
>>>>The historian doesn't make such claims.
>>
>>
>> Indeed he does. See above. There are several ways to say a source
>> is unreliably and that its record lends it little trust.
>
> Indeed, see above: 1) Johnson isn't an historian and 2) doesn't address
> the issue raised. 3) gets information wrong. The situation is far better
> and far worse than either of you are aware of.
1) Doesn't matter (what is a historian - aren't we all?)
2) Indirectly does discuss it.
3) Would be unacceptable if it could be proven so, which of course it can't!
>>>>Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance
>>>>of slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter
>>>>to Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in
>>>>the canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and
>>>>isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just
>>>>becomes an argument from silence then.
>>>
>>
>> It does not. It becomes a Sin of Omission.
>
> "sin" is a religious value, not part of history except in describing the
> history of ideas. It has no place in this discussion. It is also
> anachronistic.
And we are all 'sinners', let us not forget that - it was written!
>> The Argumentum ad Silentio doesn't apply here.
>
> Certainly it does. You can't say Jesus is "for" slavery since he didn't
> address the issue directly. Martin isn't just criticizing his silence,
> nor his actual, stated views but that Jesus doesn't condemn slavery.
> That's an argument from silence.
I don't recall criticising Jesus for anything? Only those who subsequently
used, abused and misrepresented him, for various purposes. Slavery was as
much a part of his world as, say, cars, petrol and traffic wardens are parts
of ours.
> Especially since Jesus
>> Father, whose decrees Jesus is not to deny, makes it quite clear that
>> slavery if fine.
>
> Religious statements, not historical ones.
Hmmm... Jesus's Dad is somewhat questionable as a character, very
inconsistent..
>> The New Testament doesn't exist in a vacuum.
>
> Never claimed it did. In fact, if you look above at what I wrote, you'll
> find: True, Jesus in >>>the canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part
> of his world, and>>>isn't recorded there as explicitly condemning it...."
> Jesus and the NT writers were a part of their world; criticizing them for
> being anything else is just plain idiotic.
I get the impression Jesus was attempting to distance himself from the OT,
but found it politically unwise, or dangerous. Later connections have no
doubt been amplified by 'hellfire and damnation' types, keen to crack down
on dissent and make their mark through fear. The messages about tolerance
and forgiveness were likewise watered down or qualified, with similar
purpose.
>> You either make the analysis of Jesus as a man, or as the divine,
>> moral-code-giving Messiah, make up your mind.
>
> I have, and if you bother to read what I wrote, you'll find that I've
> quite explicit about it on more than one occasion. Just for the record,
> though, you've conflated a number of things: being "divine" isn't
> necessarily a quality that means he wasn't a man in the eyes of the
> ancient world(see Augustus or Nero), nor is a "moral-code giver"
> necessarily divine or a Messiah, nor is a Messiah, or even THE Messiah,
> necessarily divine or a moral-code giver. Also just for the record, I
> approach this as Jesus being a man.
Which he was, and admitted himself - another thing later 'qualified' and
distorted by authoritarian clerics and churchmen. He certainly discovered
that he was all too human when executed so hideously... the accounts of his
shock and bewilderment have survived the machinations of time, even in
current versions of the NT.
>> As a man his silence on slavery is natural;
>
> Yep, so citing it as a problem in a discussion on history seems
> anachronistic to me.
We are all agreed on that then.
> it was part of the
>> societal fabric of the time. But as the latter, it's a disqualifying
>> omission for an eternal god, who is supposed to be the source of
>> morality.
>
> Unless of course God doesn't think it immoral......
Since it has gone on since the start of history, and continues to this day,
God either considers it to be okay, doesn't know about it, or doesn't care -
which do you think?
>>>>Then erroneous ones.
>>>
>>>> The Bible has been passed down via
>>>>
>>>>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>>>
>>>>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>>>
>>
>> This is plain wrong as explained elsewhere and as Paul Johnson's
>> passage shows.
>
> No, it is plain right as explained elsewhere and as Johnson's passage
> certainly does not show.
>
> Most ancient texts have had a very quiet life
>> compared to Christian scripture.
>
> You're confused. There are few and isolated instances, none of which have
> become part of the critical text or affected all of Christianity. From the
> sheer proportions of Christian biblical texts in comparison to anything
> else, the Christian biblical texts display a greater degree of
> faithfulness overall.
The few precious originals (which I have no doubt existed) have generated
whole rain forests of paperwork, arguments leading to battle and death, and
confusion in abundance. Hardly God's intention one might think? Or God's
intention that the precious, original versions were binned by those who
supposedly revered them as God (and his son's) word and message to us all.
It just doesn't add up somehow...
> A historian would should know
>> that.
>
> Should know something that's wrong...I do know you're wrong and have read
> a book and drawn erroneous conclusions. At least you read the book.
>
>>
>>>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>>
>>>>Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct.
>>
>>
>> Here Martin gets unfairly abused for using "The Bible" correctly.
>
> Nope. He used the Bible correctly, however he started off talking about
> early Christian texts. They aren't the same thing, especially if you want
> to talk about "early" editorial activity. Someone who's claiming to
> correct me ought to know that.
Aha... I think another 'goal' to me there! ("...he started off talking about
early Christian texts. They aren't the same thing...")
Not quoted out of context.
> As for the collection known as the Bible having "contradictions" in it, so
> what?
>
>> Why refer to the Bible by its parts if one thinks that all of it
>> suffers from the same problem of unreliability, even when different
>> parts cause doubt in different ways?
>
> Because "all of it" doesn't so suffer, and the historian doesn't treat
> these texts as if they were all the same. Only the zealot does so,
> whether zeal for the faith or zeal against it.
Most of it then. The facts are there, surely?
>>>>The objective historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke,
>>>>John, Thomas, Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that
>>>>the names are just names.....
The truly objective historian deals in original, carbon-dated texts...
>> This is more rank-pulling. Wholly unnecessary showing off.
>
> Encouraging accuracy in the discussion is showing off?
I think something must have been 'snipped' here? (And I don't mean the Holy
Foreskin!)
>> An after dealing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Philip,
>> Judas, etc., the historian may well realize, as many have, that the
>> New Testament is riddled with uncertainties, contradictions, and
>> reliability problems, which happen to be the same ills as the Old
>> Testament, which means the the whole Bible is just an exercise in
>> "anything goes," with a bit here and there that passes muster.
>
> Much depends on the questions you ask and what information you want to
> get. You have a tendency to see an "error" and then conclude that all the
> texts are wrong, which says something to you about religious faith and
> those who have it....just as those of the faith generally seize on
> something that is "right" and conclude therefore that the whole is and
> that that says something about religious faith. Both directions are wrong
> if one is doing history or even literary interpretation.
I think you meant "...those of the faith generally seize on something THAT
THEY LIKE TO THINK is "right"...".
Those without such faith, who are honest and objective, have no sush
impediment to accurate analysis, or comprehension.
>>
>>>>Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts
>>>>and what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they
>>>>may or may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites
>>>>enthusiastic acceptance of your "observations."
>>
>>
>> Off the mark again. The historians' objective conclusions matter only
>> because they represent what's agreed by those who investigate and its
>> potential utility in guiding the decision of whether to believe the
>> texts or not.
>
> Way off the mark. For one thing, Martin is talking about a completely
> different kind of belief in the texts than what an historian talks about.
> Second, each text is measured on its own merits, and even sections within
> the text...whether were talking texts later collected in the Bible or
> Tacitus or Polybius or what have you. No throwing babies out with
> bathwater.
This is correct.
> It's the END PRODUCT of what historians do and
>> conclude.
>
> No, actually the end product of what historians do is reconstruct history
> as best we are able. That's our end product, not whether or not you
> believe a text or not.
That should be the aim, and the sole aim of anyone calling themself 'a
historian' - whether they like the results or not.
Martin
> Egregious Nonsense.
Mr. Hines has wisely elected to run for the tall grass in this
discussion before his parade of ignorance sucks up more bandwidth than
the Hawaiian trunk line has to offer.
Silent, surreptitious and without admitting error, par the course,
onto greener grass, he hopes.
I've hit him so many times he must think he is surrounded.
In we were in the ring, he'd be picking his nose out of a catalog.
Lege, Sape, Disce. (LSD)
Numquam Discere Desiste.
Larry Swain
Not really, take it in the Holmesian sense.....
>
> Paul (who for some reason is given an almost god-like status by many
> authoritarian, conservative Christians)
So? Assuming this characterization is correct what does it have to do
with the discussion of the pre-Constantinian Christian movement and
their treatment of texts? Nothing at all that I can see.
never met Jesus, a homophobic,
> misogynist of obscure Turkish/Jewish Roman roots - with the worst
> characteristics of all those! Tent maker and zealot... what a piece of work.
Again, so? And again assuming that this characterization is correct for
the moment, it's a fallacy: Paul's character has nothing to do with the
fact that he reports the means of Jesus' demise almost 3 centuries
before Constantine when you claimed that it was invented.
By the way, there won't be any Turks in the area for about 10 centuries
after Paul, so no "Turkish/Jewish" roots, just Greco-Roman Jewish roots.
>
>
>>>>as were his teachings and advice on moral
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>issues -
>>>>
>>>>Wrong there too.
>>>
>>>
>>>I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we
>>>know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>
>>You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
>>misunderstood the situation.
>
>
> It was a polite, somewhat archaic term I will not use again in theis 'game'.
I'm very aware of what it was, and use it again if you feel so inclined,
I will. I was rearranging the words to lead into the point.
> I don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT misunderstood
> anything!
Yes you have, as clearly evidenced by the use of fallacious material and
red herrings to carry your debate....if that is deliberate, then you are
a low, low man not worth talking to. Since I don't believe that, I
must conclude that you've simply misunderstood.
>
>>>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on
>>>vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and respect for women. In fact, the
>>>few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht still exist, were almost all
>>>excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the four canonical gospels
>>>have survived.... odd that?
>>
>>Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based. The
>>historian doesn't make such claims.
>
>
> Eh? Considering the patently absurd claims made by so-called 'theologians',
What theologians do and do not say has nothing to do with the
discussion. Red herring again.
> I think that's extremely mild.
At least you admit it.
A historian is ideally objective, ruthlessly
> so, entirely without prejudice, fear or favour. Like me.
You are hardly without prejudice. Your vocabulary gives you away,
filled as it is with rancor, pejorative, fallacious speech. Those
features do not indicate objectivity.
>
>>BTW, the four that became canonical are dated earlier than those that were
>>not later made canonical, except perhaps GThomas, and so have a much
>>better claim to be contemporary since three of the four fall into a date
>>of less than 50 years after the events they describe unlike most of the
>>others that fall into the second century and a century or more after. As
>>for "genuiness", I suppose it all depends on what measure you use for
>>genuiness. They're all genuine ancient texts.
>
>
> None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies survive -
That's not terribly surprising: there are very few writers who were
writing "at the time of" their subject....30-50 years is pretty close by
most ancient standards. Similarly, it is a rare instance when a
contemporary copy of any ancient work survives. So this isn't a
particularly important point.
> certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century is
> a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans.
Half a century is very short in comparison to what a number of ancient
writers take as their subject matter and who are sometimes our only
source for the events described.
Memories were
> no better back then,
Actually, they were. Illiteracy and orality encourage the development
of memory. Besides it doesn't take much to remember events and report them.
and records were few and far between in alargely
> illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are seriously
> compromised.
If you apply this to everything from the ancient world, fine, but I see
no evidence of that.
>Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question are
> extant.
There is no such thing. As already noted in other posts, for Thucydides
we don't have any evidence of his writing for 400 hundred years after he
wrote, and nothing approaching a complete copy for 900 years after that.
We could go down every major author of the period and discover the
same thing: a few scraps (esp. from Oxyrynchus) and no copies for
centuries. That the Christian writings begin to show up approx. a
century after written is extraordinarily close to composition in the
period, not witness against their reliability and genuineness. The only
texts that have a claim on contemporaneity in the ancient world are
stone inscriptions and monuments.
>
>
>>Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine?
>
>
> I don't. That's the whole point!
Can't be. You stated unequivocally: "It (the canonical gospels) was
designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on vegetarianism,
freedom (from slavery) and respect for women." This strongly implies
that in your view the "gospel of Jesus" included teachings on
vegetarianism, freedom from slavery, and respect for women. Otherwise it
makes no sense to claim that the canonical gospels were written without
an emphasis on vegetarianism...unless you're just tossing in red herrings.
> Even so, near contemporary manuscripts DO exist,
Name them please.
which describe Jesus as
> being rather strong on the subject - more than one.
Again, name them.
They were of course left
> out of the NT, dor fear of offending Romans or putting Constantine off.
If they are what I suspect you are referring to, they were "left out"
because they a) were largely composed well after those of the canonical
texts and b) were not widely known among Christians
>
>
>>And if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several
>>groups who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as
>>justification for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your
>>claim.
>
>
> I made no claim... just stated some facts.
Then your "facts" are wrong, and so not facts.
>
>>Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance of
>>slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter to
>>Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in the
>>canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and isn't
>>recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just becomes an
>>argument from silence then.
>
>
> It was part of his world,
Indeed.
> and it would have been about as much use railing
> against as it would be for me to condemn computers or motor cars.
I agree, and so wonder why you "state as fact" that the canonical
gospels were written without an emphasis on freedom from slavery--do you
expect otherwise? If not, why bring it up?
>
>
>>Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the canonical
>>gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the mores of the
>>day.
>
>
> That's good to know... though it doesn't explain the RCC's objection to
> ordaining women for so many centuries.
Immaterial to the discussion and a theological question, not really a
historical one.
But to answer the question at least as it has been explained to me,
Jesus and the apostles, from whom the RC derives the priesthood (that
whole apostolic succession thing), were all male. To ordain a woman
would essentially blaspheme Christ. The cycle goes:
Christ>apostles>bishops and priests down to the present. No women,
according to the RC, need apply.
> Women have hardly been 'elevated' by
> the churches, whatever type!
But then that's a problem about how later audiences read the texts, and
so has nothing to do with the texts origins or their transmission.
>
>>The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
>>canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any gospel
>>not included in the canon.
>
>
> But there is no evidence -
There's actually a nice chunk of evidence.
> the originals do not exist,
Which again is the usual case for ancient texts.
> to be carbon dated,> checked for content etc.
But copies and scraps of papyri do begin showing up in the early second
century, and second century authors cite them. That indicates they were
around in the early second century.
>The 'other gospels' do however...
No they don't. If you're referring to Nag Hammadi, there are few of
those texts that can be claimed to be first century, and not one of the
codices is contemporary....all are later copies...i. e. the same textual
difficulties that face the canonical gospels.
>these >are historical facts, as observed by archaologists and
historians - objectively.
It does help if you get your "historical facts" correct before claiming
them as observed by archaeologists and historians.
>
>
>
>>>>this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
>>>>historians think differently.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you mean 'early-Christian apologists'?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Ah... later ones then. I know.
Indeed....I was referring to people like you.
>
>
>>Objective historians can only
>>
>>>really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
>>
>>That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
>
>
> Yet I make that 1-0 at least in this game, the ball firmly and squarely in
> the back of your net!
I think you miscount. Getting facts wrong, using red herrings, and
talking theology hardly earn you points.
>
<snip>
>> The Bible has been passed down via
>>
>>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>>
>>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>>
>> and now exists in many
>>
>>>forms.
>>
>>Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies
>>in different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the
>>Egyptian book of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much of
>>an "observation."
>
>
> I mean 'versions'... made up to suit the cult/sect/churches political tastes
> as and when required.
Evidence of this in the ancient or medieval world (and we aren't talking
about individual copies that changed a word or two.)
> If you don't believe me, have a discussion about the
> bible with the next Jehova's Witnesses who cal - and try quoting the KJ
> version. You will see they have a different Bible!
Utterly immaterial to the discussion, what modern groups do and do not
do is of no interest or importance.
>
> 3-0
You keep miscounting your points. Striking out isn't a point earner.
>
>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>
>>Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
>>historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas,
>>Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just
>>names.....
>
>
> That should of course have been 'contradictions', sorry. I meant
> contradictions between the OT and NT, and even between the gospeld - never
> mind the conflicting advice throughout.
So what? What else would you expect from a collection of texts written
over the period of a millenium by different people to address different
issues? Anything else but an unsystematic collection that has
contradictions, different views, and even conflicting statements would
be a miracle.
>>are compounded by
>>
>>>contradictions between the various versions - it has been altered and
>>>edited to suit various times, people and societies.
>>
>>Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from
>>quite early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has a
>>high probability of being as close to the original text as humanly
>>possible.
>
>
> A large number of copies of a copy does not prove the original copy was
> genuine, honest or correct! This old chestnut comes up again and again.
But this wasn't your claim. You claimed that the original had been
tampered with and unrecoverable.
If you want to go back and say that what is contained in the documents
as we have them is flawed because the original is flawed that's fine,
you'll find some places where it clearly is, and other places where it
clearly isn't, and even a few places where no one is quite sure and
there's lots of discussion.
>
>
>>The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
>>and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from
>>around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and further
>>that the change benefits a particular theological viewpoint.....the
>>objective text critic then rejects the change. That's an
>>oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
>
>
> That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based on
> unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is made
> when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically replicated
> in every subsequent copy forever,
No, that isn't true at all, especially in the textual tradition of the
texts of the Bible where they exist in multiple languages across a wide
swath of territory. An alteration or mistake made in Syria in Syrian
will have absolutely no impact on a copy made in Latin in Ireland two
centuries later. And even in Syria it's impact will depend on how many
copiests use it as an exemplar and whether or not they simply slavishly
copy it or whether there is awareness of a mistake and it is corrected,
or whether a corrector has corrected either the exemplar or the
copy....So no, your claim is false: it is not the case that any
alteration or mistake is made it is automatically replicated in every
subsequent copy forever.
no matter how many are made - or how
> carefully and honestly reproduced. The originals have gone missing - why?
Because that's the state of any work from the period: we don't have
originals of Tacitus, Livy, Catullus, Caesar, Homer, etc. The only
originals we have are texts inscribed on stone or metal.
> What could be more precious?
The contents rather than the material of transmission? Seems to me that
that is the case with every written text.
>
> That's 4-0 at least... half time?
I'm afraid you once again miscount. I'd say its more 0-6 and you have a
100 yard penalty.
>
>
>> this is not the 'infallible
>>
>>>word of God',
>>
>>never claimed it was.
>
>
> Very wise Larry!
Coming from you, I almost think that's an insult.
>
>
>>it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>>
>>>by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>>>cofusing and contradictory lump.
>>
>>So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
>>just because of that.
>
>
> I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception.
Admittedly I thought you were being deliberately deceptive. But I see
now that you're just grossly misinformed about the subject, and refuse
to gain more information lest something theological taint you.
<snip>
>
>
>>>Even the teachings and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and
>>>unreliable,
>>
>>So? If he was a human being, why should this surprise anyone?
>
>
> Good... you're beginning to understand.
I'm not sure you have any claims to not being a neophyte here. Besides,
this isn't a theological discussion, its a historical one. I fear
though that you can not tell the difference.
>
>
>>>no doubt altered to suit the tastes of despots like Charlemagne,
>>>Constantine and King James I/VI...
>>
>>Evidence? You do use the term "despot" rather loosely.
>
>
> They were all despots, no dispute there, surely?
Quite a bit actually. None of them was absolute ruler. They all at the
very least had to keep the good will of their followers else face
deposition as many of their predecessors learned at their peril.
>
>
<snipped agreement>
>
>>>with some agenda, someone to please, someone to avoid displeasing, or
>>>with some purpose in mind. Believe utterly at your peril!
>>>
>>
>>Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts and
>>what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they may or may
>>not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites enthusiastic acceptance
>>of your "observations."
>
>
> But you appear to 'believe' rather than analyse, consider and weigh up the
> evidence.
I have. I work in textual criticism, and with manuscripts and papyri.
I'm attempting to inform you how textual transmission occurs among other
things. It has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with getting
historical facts correct so that a better informed picture may be
constructed. You, by your own admission now elsewhere, have no
objective stance: you're an evangelist for a particular religious
position, hardly objective or even attempting to be objective.
> Do you have faith in the early censors and editors of the Bible?
What is faith? What early censors? What editors? What Bible? Or even
whose Bible?
Are you attempting to claim that the Bible is extraordinary in its
textual transmission, that it was treated differently than a copiest
treated any other text being copied? What is your evidence for this?
I
> don't, and nor would any other reputable historian.
So faith is the measure of being reputable? That's interesting. Here I
would think its how one treats the sources.
Martin
You reckon he had no influence? An unusual attitude...
> never met Jesus, a homophobic,
>> misogynist of obscure Turkish/Jewish Roman roots - with the worst
>> characteristics of all those! Tent maker and zealot... what a piece of
>> work.
>
> Again, so? And again assuming that this characterization is correct for
> the moment, it's a fallacy: Paul's character has nothing to do with the
> fact that he reports the means of Jesus' demise almost 3 centuries
> before Constantine when you claimed that it was invented.
What 'demise'?
> By the way, there won't be any Turks in the area for about 10 centuries
> after Paul, so no "Turkish/Jewish" roots, just Greco-Roman Jewish roots.
And no British/German/Spanish people either... just a regional identity.
>>>>>as were his teachings and advice on moral
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>issues -
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong there too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we
>>>>know as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>>
>>>You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
>>>misunderstood the situation.
>>
>>
>> It was a polite, somewhat archaic term I will not use again in theis
>> 'game'.
>
> I'm very aware of what it was, and use it again if you feel so inclined,
> I will. I was rearranging the words to lead into the point.
I must have missed it? I have not 'misunderstood the situation', far from
it.
>> I don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT misunderstood
>> anything!
>
> Yes you have, as clearly evidenced by the use of fallacious material and
> red herrings to carry your debate....if that is deliberate, then you are
> a low, low man not worth talking to. Since I don't believe that, I
> must conclude that you've simply misunderstood.
Well, thanks for that at least. I have not misunderstood however, and if I
have, you have failed to point out WHY... ?
>>>>It was designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on
>>>>vegetarianism, freedom (from slavery) and respect for women. In fact,
>>>>the few genuine, comtemporary 'gospels' taht still exist, were almost
>>>>all excluded from the NT, and no such copies of the four canonical
>>>>gospels have survived.... odd that?
>>>
>>>Well, that just demonstrates that you're not being historically based.
>>>The historian doesn't make such claims.
>>
>>
>> Eh? Considering the patently absurd claims made by so-called
>> 'theologians',
>
> What theologians do and do not say has nothing to do with the
> discussion. Red herring again.
On the contrary, theology (*honest* theology) should be based and
inextricably entwined with history and fact. No red-herrings here.
>> I think that's extremely mild.
>
> At least you admit it.
>
> A historian is ideally objective, ruthlessly
>> so, entirely without prejudice, fear or favour. Like me.
>
> You are hardly without prejudice. Your vocabulary gives you away,
> filled as it is with rancor, pejorative, fallacious speech. Those
> features do not indicate objectivity.
But I am without prejudice. And I object to the term 'fallacious' as that
implies dishonesty. I don't need to be dishonest or evasive to make and/or
prove my points. If you see 'passion' anywhere, that may be so, as I find
the tiresome, circular, innacurate and dishonest tactics of those who
believe the Bible to be the 'word of God' rather irritating sometimes. I am
only human... like Jesus. |
>>>BTW, the four that became canonical are dated earlier than those that
>>>were not later made canonical, except perhaps GThomas, and so have a much
>>>better claim to be contemporary since three of the four fall into a date
>>>of less than 50 years after the events they describe unlike most of the
>>>others that fall into the second century and a century or more after. As
>>>for "genuiness", I suppose it all depends on what measure you use for
>>>genuiness. They're all genuine ancient texts.
>>
>>
>> None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies
>> survive -
>
> That's not terribly surprising: there are very few writers who were
> writing "at the time of" their subject....30-50 years is pretty close by
> most ancient standards. Similarly, it is a rare instance when a
> contemporary copy of any ancient work survives. So this isn't a
> particularly important point.
It is a vital point, and that is not so. Many Roman documents, original
documents, survive to this day. So do A Egyptian and other documents...
>> certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century
>> is a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans.
>
> Half a century is very short in comparison to what a number of ancient
> writers take as their subject matter and who are sometimes our only
> source for the events described.
Any 'source' is better than none of course (Herodotus for example?)
> Memories were
>> no better back then,
>
> Actually, they were. Illiteracy and orality encourage the development
> of memory. Besides it doesn't take much to remember events and report
> them.
Not after several decades however.
> and records were few and far between in alargely
>> illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are
>> seriously compromised.
>
> If you apply this to everything from the ancient world, fine, but I see
> no evidence of that.
Well most people see plenty of evidence of innacuracy, dishonesty and
fantasy coming down to us from the ancient world - proclaimed by the authors
as 'fact'.
> >Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question are
>> extant.
>
> There is no such thing. As already noted in other posts, for Thucydides
> we don't have any evidence of his writing for 400 hundred years after he
> wrote, and nothing approaching a complete copy for 900 years after that.
> We could go down every major author of the period and discover the
> same thing: a few scraps (esp. from Oxyrynchus) and no copies for
> centuries. That the Christian writings begin to show up approx. a
> century after written is extraordinarily close to composition in the
> period, not witness against their reliability and genuineness. The only
> texts that have a claim on contemporaneity in the ancient world are
> stone inscriptions and monuments.
So what? Are you claiming that ALL of these are 100% accurate, or none? I am
only referring to one particular case.
>>>Re: vegetarianism, how do you know that this teaching is genuine?
>>
>>
>> I don't. That's the whole point!
>
> Can't be. You stated unequivocally: "It (the canonical gospels) was
> designed to appeal to 'Roman taste', without emphasis on vegetarianism,
> freedom (from slavery) and respect for women." This strongly implies
> that in your view the "gospel of Jesus" included teachings on
> vegetarianism, freedom from slavery, and respect for women. Otherwise it
> makes no sense to claim that the canonical gospels were written without
> an emphasis on vegetarianism...unless you're just tossing in red herrings.
Let's get this straight. I do not know, and do not claim that ANY 'gospel'
is accurate, verifiable, or more worthy than any other. What I do know is
that that from known copies of those gospels, the earliest versions and
copies are of ones that were left out of the Bible, and there are no known
early or original copies of the four canonical gospels.
Whether any of them are accurate, objective and 'untainted' historical
records, I doubt. Sorting the 'wheat from the chaff' is beyond difficult, it
is probably impossible by now - not helped by the fact that all early
versions of the canonical gospels (MML&J) have gone missing, been destroyed,
or never existed.
>> Even so, near contemporary manuscripts DO exist,
>
> Name them please.
Surely you know? The Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi stuff...
> which describe Jesus as
>> being rather strong on the subject - more than one.
>
> Again, name them.
Essenes, Twelve, Gnostic...
> They were of course left
>> out of the NT, dor fear of offending Romans or putting Constantine off.
>
> If they are what I suspect you are referring to, they were "left out"
> because they a) were largely composed well after those of the canonical
> texts and b) were not widely known among Christians
For obvious reasons, in a sect that was sucking up to Rome!
>>>And if it was, you might be interested to know that there are several
>>>groups who promote vegetarianism and look to the canonical gospels as
>>>justification for doing so, which seems to me to rather undermine your
>>>claim.
>>
>>
>> I made no claim... just stated some facts.
>
> Then your "facts" are wrong, and so not facts.
But they are not wrong, facts cannot be so!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm
Conflicts....
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm
And we had to get DaVinci in here...
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/missing-books-of-the-bible.html
>>
>>>Re: freedom from slavery--I think you've confused Paul's acceptance of
>>>slavery, generally based on an understanding of the short letter to
>>>Philemon, with Jesus' statements in the gospel. True, Jesus in the
>>>canonicals seems to accept slavery as a part of his world, and isn't
>>>recorded there as explicitly condemning it, but that just becomes an
>>>argument from silence then.
>>
>>
>> It was part of his world,
>
> Indeed.
>
> > and it would have been about as much use railing
>> against as it would be for me to condemn computers or motor cars.
>
> I agree, and so wonder why you "state as fact" that the canonical
> gospels were written without an emphasis on freedom from slavery--do you
> expect otherwise? If not, why bring it up?
Just to make a point - such a thing wouldn't have been welcome in important
Roman circles.
>>>Re: respect for women--again, a large number of people read the canonical
>>>gospels as having advanced the role of women far beyond the mores of the
>>>day.
>>
>>
>> That's good to know... though it doesn't explain the RCC's objection to
>> ordaining women for so many centuries.
>
> Immaterial to the discussion and a theological question, not really a
> historical one.
The two do go together you know?
> But to answer the question at least as it has been explained to me,
> Jesus and the apostles, from whom the RC derives the priesthood (that
> whole apostolic succession thing), were all male. To ordain a woman
> would essentially blaspheme Christ. The cycle goes:
> Christ>apostles>bishops and priests down to the present. No women,
> according to the RC, need apply.
But Jesus made no such commandment, in any gospel (canonical or not). Even
so, irrelevant as you say.
> > Women have hardly been 'elevated' by
>> the churches, whatever type!
>
> But then that's a problem about how later audiences read the texts, and
> so has nothing to do with the texts origins or their transmission.
Or manipulated the truth and invented rules for personal and political
reasons. Such things are not unknown in the history of the church.
>>>The manuscript evidence and external evidence for the gospels later made
>>>canonical is earlier and closer to the date of composition than any
>>>gospel not included in the canon.
>>
>>
>> But there is no evidence -
>
> There's actually a nice chunk of evidence.
There is? Where?
> > the originals do not exist,
>
> Which again is the usual case for ancient texts.
>
> > to be carbon dated,> checked for content etc.
>
> But copies and scraps of papyri do begin showing up in the early second
> century, and second century authors cite them. That indicates they were
> around in the early second century.
So where are they, these early canonical gospels?
> >The 'other gospels' do however...
>
> No they don't. If you're referring to Nag Hammadi, there are few of
> those texts that can be claimed to be first century, and not one of the
> codices is contemporary....all are later copies...i. e. the same textual
> difficulties that face the canonical gospels.
Maybe so... yet a damn sight closer to 'the source' than any canonical
versions!
> >these >are historical facts, as observed by archaologists and
> historians - objectively.
>
> It does help if you get your "historical facts" correct before claiming
> them as observed by archaeologists and historians.
I haven't *personally* found any, and couldn't read them if I did. At some
point we are forced to accept the word of 'experts' as evidence... I prefer
real, accredited experts to charlatans and religious zealots, that's the
difference. Whether first, second or twenty first century.
>>>>>this is clear to any objective historian worth his salt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, its clear only to anti-Christian apologists. Objective
>>>>>historians think differently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean 'early-Christian apologists'?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>
>> Ah... later ones then. I know.
>
> Indeed....I was referring to people like you.
But I apologise for nobody - especially myself in this case.
>>>Objective historians can only
>>>
>>>>really come to one conclusion - that mentioned above.
>>>
>>>That's tautological....both fallacious and false.
>>
>>
>> Yet I make that 1-0 at least in this game, the ball firmly and squarely
>> in the back of your net!
>
> I think you miscount. Getting facts wrong, using red herrings, and
> talking theology hardly earn you points.
2-0 then.
> <snip>
>
>>> The Bible has been passed down via
>>>
>>>>translators, copyists and scribes for many centuries,
>>>
>>>As is every other text from the ancient and medieval worlds.
>>>
>>> and now exists in many
>>>
>>>>forms.
>>>
>>>Depends on what you mean by "forms". If you simply mean multiple copies
>>>in different languages and translations so does Homer, Vergil, the
>>>Egyptian book of the dead, the Rosetta Stone......etc. This isn't much
>>>of an "observation."
>>
>>
>> I mean 'versions'... made up to suit the cult/sect/churches political
>> tastes as and when required.
>
> Evidence of this in the ancient or medieval world (and we aren't talking
> about individual copies that changed a word or two.)
>
>> If you don't believe me, have a discussion about the bible with the next
>> Jehova's Witnesses who cal - and try quoting the KJ version. You will see
>> they have a different Bible!
>
> Utterly immaterial to the discussion, what modern groups do and do not do
> is of no interest or importance.
>
>>
>> 3-0
>
> You keep miscounting your points. Striking out isn't a point earner.
We're talking goals here, not girly rounders. That's probably 4-0..
>>> The numerous cantradictions within it
>>>
>>>Within what? The Bible? The Bible is a later construct. The objective
>>>historian deals in texts...i. e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas,
>>>Philip, Judas, etc always of course recognizing that the names are just
>>>names.....
>>
>>
>> That should of course have been 'contradictions', sorry. I meant
>> contradictions between the OT and NT, and even between the gospeld -
>> never mind the conflicting advice throughout.
>
> So what? What else would you expect from a collection of texts written
> over the period of a millenium by different people to address different
> issues? Anything else but an unsystematic collection that has
> contradictions, different views, and even conflicting statements would be
> a miracle.
Exactly! Yet some still claim this book is a miracle.
>>>are compounded by
>>>
>>>>contradictions between the various versions - it has been altered and
>>>>edited to suit various times, people and societies.
>>>
>>>Sure, and yet we're fortunate to have so many copies, some of them from
>>>quite early, to establish via means of textual criticism a text that has
>>>a high probability of being as close to the original text as humanly
>>>possible.
>>
>>
>> A large number of copies of a copy does not prove the original copy was
>> genuine, honest or correct! This old chestnut comes up again and again.
>
> But this wasn't your claim. You claimed that the original had been
> tampered with and unrecoverable.
It has I'm afraid. Sad..
> If you want to go back and say that what is contained in the documents as
> we have them is flawed because the original is flawed that's fine, you'll
> find some places where it clearly is, and other places where it clearly
> isn't, and even a few places where no one is quite sure and there's lots
> of discussion.
Some is probably true and historically accurate. The question should be
'which parts' then 'why?', in that order.
>>>The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
>>>and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from
>>>around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and
>>>further that the change benefits a particular theological
>>>viewpoint.....the objective text critic then rejects the change. That's
>>>an oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
>>
>>
>> That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based
>> on unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is
>> made when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically
>> replicated in every subsequent copy forever,
>
> No, that isn't true at all, especially in the textual tradition of the
> texts of the Bible where they exist in multiple languages across a wide
> swath of territory. An alteration or mistake made in Syria in Syrian will
> have absolutely no impact on a copy made in Latin in Ireland two centuries
> later. And even in Syria it's impact will depend on how many copiests use
> it as an exemplar and whether or not they simply slavishly copy it or
> whether there is awareness of a mistake and it is corrected, or whether a
> corrector has corrected either the exemplar or the copy....So no, your
> claim is false: it is not the case that any alteration or mistake is made
> it is automatically replicated in every subsequent copy forever.
This back-tracking of copies is an interesting issue. there is no evidence
(based on mulitiple translations) that the errors did not occurs at the
source of them all, the documentary proof of which has been lost.
> no matter how many are made - or how
>> carefully and honestly reproduced. The originals have gone missing - why?
>
> Because that's the state of any work from the period: we don't have
> originals of Tacitus, Livy, Catullus, Caesar, Homer, etc. The only
> originals we have are texts inscribed on stone or metal.
Like the Kensington Runestone perhaps?
>> What could be more precious?
>
> The contents rather than the material of transmission? Seems to me that
> that is the case with every written text.
I find this highly unlikely in an institution which hasm from the start,
revered and valued relics to absurd degrees.
>> That's 4-0 at least... half time?
>
> I'm afraid you once again miscount. I'd say its more 0-6 and you have a
> 100 yard penalty.
And your open goal begs for more...
>>> this is not the 'infallible
>>>
>>>>word of God',
>>>
>>>never claimed it was.
>>
>>
>> Very wise Larry!
>
> Coming from you, I almost think that's an insult.
Not at all... it was nice to see it, I always thought better of you!
>>>it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>>>
>>>>by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>>>>cofusing and contradictory lump.
>>>
>>>So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
>>>just because of that.
>>
>>
>> I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception.
>
> Admittedly I thought you were being deliberately deceptive. But I see now
> that you're just grossly misinformed about the subject, and refuse to gain
> more information lest something theological taint you.
I have no fears in that direction, having researched the subject in depth.
In my book, history and theology go together...
> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>>Even the teachings and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and
>>>>unreliable,
>>>
>>>So? If he was a human being, why should this surprise anyone?
>>
>>
>> Good... you're beginning to understand.
>
> I'm not sure you have any claims to not being a neophyte here. Besides,
> this isn't a theological discussion, its a historical one. I fear though
> that you can not tell the difference.
As I said, the two go together in my book.
Cheers
Martin
D. Spencer Hines
Of COURSE it's DELIBERATE.
How long will it take Swain to understand he's being conned?
Stay Tuned...
Great Entertainment!
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
>>>> I don't need to beg of course... since I have certainly NOT
>>>> misunderstood anything!
>>
>>> Yes you have, as clearly evidenced by the use of fallacious
>>> material and red herrings to carry your debate....if that is
>>> deliberate, then you are a low, low man not worth talking
>>> to. Since I don't believe that, I must conclude that you've
>>> simply misunderstood.
>
>> Well, thanks for that at least. I have not misunderstood however,
>> and if I have, you have failed to point out WHY... ?
>>> I'm not sure you have any claims to not being a neophyte here.
te...@tiglath.net
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Not sure about his religious leanings, so it is of no interest to me
> > whether he's Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Shinto.
>
> Glad to hear it... religious prejudices and obediences have NO PLACE in the
> objective examination and analysis of historical documents and events! The
> same goes for political affiliations, and personal tastes.
>
But that is quite different from what you are doing. The gospels ARE
religious text. An historical examination that ignores that fact is
fatally flawed. Much as you don't think so, a competent historian's
conclusion on those texts HAS to include a statement to the effect
that many of the events related and the very existence of Jesus are
without solid foundation. The fact that a great part of humanity has
decided to take the claims of the bible on faith does not mean that a
historian concluding that there is scant evidence to believe in
historicity of the Jesus of the gospels is indulging in religious
prejudice.
>
> > Just because Martin is not an
> >> academic historian it doesn't nullify his argument.
>
> Ahem! I thought I was better than that? An academic... dear me...
"Academics" is a group big enough to encompass the good, the bad, the
competent, and the incompetent; it's plain to see.
>
> >> The Argumentum ad Silentio doesn't apply here.
>
> > Certainly it does. You can't say Jesus is "for" slavery since he didn't
> > address the issue directly. Martin isn't just criticizing his silence,
> > nor his actual, stated views but that Jesus doesn't condemn slavery.
> > That's an argument from silence.
>
> I don't recall criticising Jesus for anything? Only those who subsequently
> used, abused and misrepresented him, for various purposes. Slavery was as
> much a part of his world as, say, cars, petrol and traffic wardens are parts
> of ours.
As I posted before. The Argument from Silence is hard to apply to
long-lived questions that don't meet expectations, like the
historicity of Jesus, or Jesus condoning slavery.
There are cases where argument from silence is not a fallacy
necessarily, by the well-known Negative Evidence Principle, formulated
by Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University.
A person is justified in believing that a proposition P is false if
(1) all the available evidence to support P is shown to be inadequate;
and (2) P is the sort of claim that if it were true, there would be
available evidence that would be adequate to support it; and (3) the
area where evidence would appear has been comprehensively examined.
That is an accepted principle of justification in ordinary life and
science. It would be quite arbitrary, therefore, not to use it in the
context of biblical scholarship. For the historicity of Jesus,
the evidence one would expect to be available that would support the
hypothesis of his existence, is not available. The question has been
comprehensibly scrutinized for centuries, and one would expect that a
man like Jesus who was a public figure known throughout the regions of
Judea and Galilee, would be profusely mentioned by contemporary
historians and referred to in documents of the time in no uncertain
way. As this is not the case the principle applies.
>
> > Much depends on the questions you ask and what information you want to
> > get. You have a tendency to see an "error" and then conclude that all the
> > texts are wrong, which says something to you about religious faith and
> > those who have it....
Misrepresenting my argument is a poor way to argue against it. I
NEVER said that ALL the texts are wrong. Mind your words.
I said both testaments are riddled with errors, which is a true
statement.
There is a running theme in the Bible, never mind the independence you
may want to accord to its parts. The theme of the Jewish God and the
Christian God, the rest is scaffolding. From the chronology in its
begets, to most specific events, related all we have is magical
thinking garnished with false history and a sprinkle of true
history. The true parts can't even begin to redeem the flights of
fancy at the heart of the work.
The Bible is of course a superb work of literature and exquisite
poetry at times, but that is no good to the historian, other than for
knowing the kinds of things Jewish men wrote in those times.
You said your focus is Jesus the man, when reading the gospels. A
poor choice to say the least, because the gospels clearly deal with a
god and say very little about the man. The man/god duality is
incoherent and factually meaningless, because what means to be a man
is incompatible with Jesus of the gospels. Men don't perform
miracles. It's a manifestation of the problematic meaningfulness of
religious language. Being a man exclude having godly attributes and
conversely god can't be a man. That's why "anything goes" and
"language be damned" are the the main premises of the gospels.
If by Jesus the man you mean the germinal Jesus on whom the
protagonist of the gospels may have been based, you are out of luck,
because the evengelists have no interests in him, they are too busy
marketing their confection. For non-evangelical sources you are stuck
with Tacitus and Josephus, both excellent dead ends.
> > just as those of the faith generally seize on
> > something that is "right" and conclude therefore that the whole is and
> > that that says something about religious faith. Both directions are wrong
> > if one is doing history or even literary interpretation.
>
I understand perfectly well which parts of the Bible are reasonable
accurate and which are not. The RATIO, that would yield an index of
reliability continues to be abysmal.
> I think you meant "...those of the faith generally seize on something THAT
> THEY LIKE TO THINK is "right"...".
> Those without such faith, who are honest and objective, have no sush
> impediment to accurate analysis, or comprehension.
>
>
>
> >>>>Since the discussion wasn't about belief, but about a set of texts
> >>>>and what objective historians do and do not do and conclusions they
> >>>>may or may not draw, your diatribe on belief hardly invites
> >>>>enthusiastic acceptance of your "observations."
>
> >> Off the mark again. The historians' objective conclusions matter only
> >> because they represent what's agreed by those who investigate and its
> >> potential utility in guiding the decision of whether to believe the
> >> texts or not.
>
> > Way off the mark. For one thing, Martin is talking about a completely
> > different kind of belief in the texts than what an historian talks about.
> > Second, each text is measured on its own merits, and even sections within
> > the text...whether were talking texts later collected in the Bible or
> > Tacitus or Polybius or what have you. No throwing babies out with
> > bathwater.
Again, the many text of the bible are now THE BIBLE. And it is
possible to appraise the work as a whole, despite the variations
between its parts. First because all parts have the same central
theme, which is fundamentally counter-factual. Secondly, other
material is more or less directly in support or related to the central
theme. The separate texts have been put together because they belong
together. Their sum is therefore as amenable to criticism as each
part may be.
>
> This is correct.
>
> > It's the END PRODUCT of what historians do and
> >> conclude.
>
> > No, actually the end product of what historians do is reconstruct history
> > as best we are able. That's our end product, not whether or not you
> > believe a text or not.
Reconstruct?
Wow!
No humility discernible in this historian, if he is one.
One can reconstruct a house damaged by a hurricane, I guess, but
history?
Since for a start the best historian is irremediably ignorant of many
of the things people who came before us had known nor can he empty
his head of modern attitudes, I'd say that a sketch by mental re-
enactment is about as much as one can hope for.
>
> That should be the aim, and the sole aim of anyone calling themself 'a
> historian' - whether they like the results or not.
Simplistic.
The MODERN HISTORIAN takes great pains to communicate the degree of
reliability his historical statements warrant. One finds it a
constant companion to the narrative, in line, as notes, foot notes,
introductions, or chapters on sources, but it's never far. It's not
unusual to find a historical statement preceded, interrupted, or
followed by the historian conclusion as to how strong or weak the
evidence for the statement is.
"In history, [historical conclusions] they are conclusions about
events, each having a place and a date of its own. The EXACTITUDE
with which place and date are known to the historian is variable; but
he always knows that there were both a place and a date, and within
limits he always knows what they were; this knowledge BEING PART OF
THE CONCLUSION to which he is led by arguing from the facts before
him." [My caps]
-- Collinwood, R.G. "The Idea of History," 1993, p. 251,
Oxford University Press
Therefore your two comments above, "not whether or not you believe a
text or not," and "whether they like the results or not," if they
indicate that you believe that what historians do is just churn out
their subjective interpretation of the historical evidence and care
little whether we believe them or not (I never said anything about
liking it or not, by the way), it's sad news.
If that's the case, what we have is Larry reducing history to
compilation. The error would be pardonable in a layman, but as it
seems Larry tries to make a living out of history the connotations are
not flattering.
Modern historians are SO concerned with the credibility of their work,
that extend their preoccupation to historians that were less so
concerned, like most of the ancient. Thus, we have hefty tomes on
Herodutus, Polybius, Livy, Tacitus, and the other great. Those works
are mainly devoted to inform us of the historian's method, bias,
sources, and how much we can trust what we read, since they didn't
bother much to tell us.
Ancient History - Evidence and Models; M.I. Finley
A Historical Commentary On Polybius - F. W. Walbank
A Commentary on Livy - S. P. Oakley
Tacitus - Ronald Mellor
Take any of the modern books of Livy's works, Early Rome, Rome and
Italy, etc.; they all come with a hefty introduction. In it we find a
section titled "The Evidence" set aside to do precisely what you claim
historians don't do, give a measure of how much we can believe what we
read.
The modern historian's preoccupation with supporting his historical
statements is not only found in his own works but often when
commenting on works by their peers and historians of recent
generations.
Edward Carr tells us that, "Great history is written precisely when
the historian's vision of the past is illuminated by insights into the
problems of the present."
It is seen as a virtue when historians put history in terms their
contemporaries care about; it's a more or less conscious service to
the immediate readership. But as time passes it's bias to caution
about. So we are warned that Livy's history was rooted in the
Augustan revival and relied on sources who were more interested in
using history to reflect the issues and controversies of their time
than in historical research. So we are warned that Mommsen's well-
known idealization of Caesar reflects his yearning for a strong man to
save Germany from ruin.
THAT and more is how much the modern historian cares about
establishing not only the reliability of his own historical
statements, but that of others.
So much for, "[W]hat historians do is reconstruct history... That's
Larry Swain
> On Oct 14, 5:14 pm, "Martin" <martin1471spamf...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 5:14 pm, "Martin" <martin1471spamf...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies survive -
>>certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century is
>>a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans. Memories were
>>no better back then, and records were few and far between in alargely
>>illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are seriously
>>compromised. Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question are
>>extant.
>>
>
>
> The time lag means lack of primary sources and eyewitnesses.
Not really, not unless you can show that everyone who saw Jesus and
heard him preach and knew him died before any of it was written down or
passed on and that none of the gospel writers had any contact whatsoever
with those people or sources. 50 years even in the ancient world is
more than enough time for overlap and we have a pretty solid foundation
that at least some of Jesus' deeds and sayings were written down and
circulated.
Thucydides is unusual in the ancient world as one who could and did
write about events contemporary to him. Sure there are others, but even
taken together they aren't the norm.
>
> The problem with the authors of the Synoptic Gospels being anonymous
> can't be overstated.
Oh *yawn*, so the Merneptah Stele is by an anonymous author, does that
cause big problems for you? If not, you're simply grasping at straws.
> It signifies that there is no way to gauge the credibility we ought to
> accord to the writers, stemming from their background, position,
> interests, and motivations.
We may not know specific identities, if such exist (i. e. if we're
really dealing with single authors at all), but careful reading of the
texts (as with any text) reveals significant amounts of information
about the background of each, their positions, interests, and motivations.
Not to mention what skill they possessed
> in translating from Aramaic verbal accounts to Greek,
Which assumes that the bilingual environment of Judea, Galilee, Syria
etc was unable to handle the translation, and assumes a great deal about
the language of the early church, much less Jesus himself. Increasingly
evidence has been found of the area being highly Hellenized, down to
Greek street signs in places like Capernaum that suggests that even
lower classes had at least functional literacy in Greek, for example.
> what sources
> they used and the reliability of those sources, which are ALSO
> anonymous.
That isn't surprising either: there are few instances where we can
identify with certain and interrogate an ancient historian's sources.
Sure, we'd like to be able to be more definitive, but as in so much we
can't. So we work with what we have. So what?
>
> Never has so much been entrusted to shadows.
Oh please.....for someone so widely read, it is a shocking statement.
On the other hand, do we have reason to doubt that Pilate was prefect of
Judea? That Caiaphas was a high priest? That there was a temple in
Roman era Jerusalem? That rabbis and others preached openly, taught
students privately, etc? Not that I'm aware of.
> Not to mention the Synoptic Problem of inter-consistency, or lack of
> it,
But that isn't what the Synoptic Problem is: it has nothing to with
"inter-consistency", it has to do with, well, those sources of the
Synoptic gospels and how to best explain the literary relationships
between them.
> and the textual variations both detected and undetected, both
> fraudulent and accidental, of the extant texts.
Except that again the Christian writings have a better claim than almost
any other that an accurate critical edition can be made and has been made.
>
> Some people claim that if we had no New Testament text at all, you
> could put together all of it from the writings of the Church Fathers
> alone.
>
> .... Only that, even if so, you've cubed the puzzle...
>
>
>
>
>>>The great advantage is that say a scribe in the Sinai makes some changes
>>>and affects a family of papyri, gloriosa, we compare to other papyri from
>>>around the world and find that that change doesn't exist there and further
>>>that the change benefits a particular theological viewpoint.....the
>>>objective text critic then rejects the change. That's an
>>>oversimplification, naturally, but addresses your "observation."
>>
>>That is not an 'oversimplification', it is a misleading statement, based on
>>unsound logic and wishful thinking. If any alteration or mistake is made
>>when translating or copying an original MSS, it is automatically replicated
>>in every subsequent copy forever, no matter how many are made - or how
>>carefully and honestly reproduced. The originals have gone missing - why?
>>What could be more precious?
>
>
> It also means that SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES have arisen for these
> texts.
Sure. The special circumstances being that unlike other ancient texts,
the Christian texts have thousands of copies and thousands more
quotations that can be compared and critically edited in preparing a
modern text. And the results are that of 21500 or so lines in Greek in
the Christian NT, only 40 have any significant problem with them, about
.0019% of the total. So, yes, that does make it special
circumstances....but I suspect that wasn't what you were referring to.
> It's like letting the prosecution keep the written evidence for
> fifteen centuries before the trial, and then at court have the judge
> rule that copies of the evidence will be admitted.
Invalid analogy.
> But by far the MOST special circumstance is the extraordinary claims
> made in the texts, which, there is a good chance, centuries of
> alterations and errors have not made less extraordinary. Some
> Christians proudly insists that copying errors and interpolations
> didn't change the doctrinal contain significantly. Jews make a
> similar claim based on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd say
> it's a damn pity.
>
> Because knowing for instance that the author of Mark was a highly-
> respected, polyglot philosopher in Antioch named Flavius, would hardly
> be evidence for say, the truth of Lazarus' resuscitation or the virgin
> birth.
But now you're back to talking about faith and theology, rather than
history.
The Christian documents are hardly the only texts to make extraordinary
claims. Suetonius for example reports that at the birth of Octavius the
astrologer Publius Nigidius prophesied that the ruler of the world had
been born, and that a little while later his father consulted some
priests who confirmed this and "...since such a pillar of flame sprang
forth from the wine that was poured over the altar, that it rose above
the temple roof and mounted to the very sky, and such an omen had
befallen no one save Alexander the Great, when he offered sacrifice at
the same altar. 6 Moreover, the very next night he dreamt that his son
appeared to him in a guise more majestic than that of mortal man, with
the thunderbolt, sceptre, and insignia of Jupiter Optimus Maximus,
wearing a crown begirt with rays and mounted upon a laurel-wreathed
chariot drawn by twelve horses of surpassing whiteness."
This all sounds pretty miraculous to me. Does this mean that I then
doubt that Augustus was born on the day the Catilene conspiracy was
being tried? No, why should I? Because miracles, signs, and portents
accompany the historical information? Hopefully I can discern between
the two, can you?
BTW, I might mention that neither the virgin birth nor Lazarus is in
Mark's gospel.
>
> It's a fair point to discuss the distortion of the message through pen
> and time, but it pales next to the inherent problems with the
> message.
A religious and theological issue, not an historical one.
From the talking snake to the ascension to heaven we are in
> fairyland. Let's not forget that diplodocus in the room...
So let's throw out Suetonius, then, who reports that Augustus bade the
frogs at his Grandfather's farm be silent and they obeyed him.
>
> You just don't have that kind of problem when Livy tells you that in
> mid-fifth century BC there was a plowman who became Dictator of Rome,
> saved his country, and returned to his plough seventeen days later,
> much as it's a relief from a she-wolf suckling Villanovan twins.
Nor do you have that "problem" when Luke tells you about Jesus in the
Temple or the reactions to some of his preaching....but we can cherry
pick episodes all we like. But you're overlooking Livy's claims: such
as the operation of the Fates in the arrival of Aeneas or the explicit
statements about Romulus, descendant of a deity and himself a deity who
even once descended from heaven in a vision to inform Proclus that Rome
would be the capital of the world by the command of heaven or the
deliverance of the city because of a reward due to the piety of some
Roman women. Very much the same sort of stuff.
>
>
>>>it is a hodge podge of ancient books and MSS's, altered both
>>>
>>>>by mistahe and on purpose many times, and lumped together in one vague,
>>>>cofusing and contradictory lump.
>>
>>>So? Its a library of ancient texts. So what? No need to lie about it
>>>just because of that.
>>
>>I object to the word 'lie' - that implies deliberate deception. No need for
>>that, even if I did wish to 'rubbish the Bible' - which I don't. There is no
>>need.
>
>
> The Bible is wonderful. It reveals a people passionate with their
> own history and fate. Every culture should have a similar book.
>
> The mistake is to take it for what it is not.
And to make mistakes about what is and what it is not with erroneous claims.
J Antero
> te...@tiglath.net wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 5:14 pm, "Martin" <martin1471spamf...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 14, 5:14 pm, "Martin" <martin1471spamf...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>None were written at the time of Jesus, and no contemporary copies
>>>survive -
>>>certainly not in the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Half a century
>>>is
>>>a long time, and was even longer then, with shorter lifespans. Memories
>>>were
>>>no better back then, and records were few and far between in alargely
>>>illiterate world... therefore, reliability and 'genuineness' are
>>>seriously
>>>compromised. Even more so when no early copies of the texts in question
>>>are
>>>extant.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The time lag means lack of primary sources and eyewitnesses.
>
> Not really, not unless you can show that everyone who saw Jesus and
> heard him preach and knew him died before any of it was written down or
> passed on and that none of the gospel writers had any contact whatsoever
> with those people or sources.
So you're taking the position that this set of often conflicting books, that
very likely went through an oral tradition of translation between various
languauges, and then were written down in unavailable initial texts by
persons unknown, for purposes unknown, and then have gone through centuries
of deliberate and an accidental alteration and translation, should be
considered to contain primary sources and eyewitness information, unless it
can be proven otherwise.
Does that apply to the magic acts, too?
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" schrieb :
>
>>Martin wrote:
>
>
> I mostly agree with Larry.
> I just want to add a few notes.
>
>
>>>I've always wondered why that happened? There is speculation that it is
>>>because of early Christian desires to blame the jews, rather than the nice
>>>Romans they were sucking up to for favours... how sordid!
>>
>>To a degree....but at the time in the late first century, the Christians
>>viewed the "Jews" as being the instigators of persecution against Christians
>>making use of the Roman administration in various districts to do so. (Not
>>addressing the historical viability of this, just the early Christian view).
>>So they attempt to separate the two: excuse the Romans while vilifying those
>>who turn them in. Good politics, which I suppose also fits the sordid
>>definition.
>>
>
> Wasn't the vilifiying also "necessary" to clearly separate the Pauline
> sect from the rest of Judaism ?
Not really. The full inclusion of Gentiles into the Pauline community
was sufficient to distance those communities from mainstream Judaisms.
The real break between "church and synagogue" seems to have come later,
possibly after 66 when the Jewish Christian communities in Jerusalem are
said to have left the city, just as the fervor of revolt was getting
under way.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>A trouble-making publicity seeker? Backfired rather painfully if so...
>>
>>I'm not sure he really fits this bill. "Trouble-making" is in the eye of the
>>troubled I would think. His clearing of the Temple was the physical
>>manifestation of a great frustration that Pharisees and their followers had
>>with those who operated the Temple and its precincts, the Sadducees. From the
>>Sadducee point of view, yes, a trouble maker, from those who opposed the
>>Sadducees, not so much. As for "publicity", what is that in the ancient
>>world?
>>
>
> From the Roman point of view he also was a trouble-maker.
Could be. Could have been. The Romans don't seem to have bothered with
him much, not until the Temple affair, and even then it is the Temple
guard, not the Romans, who arrest Jesus. While they were probably
keeping an eye on him, to that point he hadn't done anything
illegal...even saying "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" in
regard to paying Roman taxes.
> The Sadducees collected the taxes for the Romans; anything or anyone
> disturbing that tax-farming asked for serious trouble.
But Jesus didn't really do that. He wasn't against paying taxes, or
even the "buying and selling" of sacrificial animals and
offerings.....what he was against, and so were many key Pharisaic
leaders, was the selling of these things IN THE TEMPLE PRECINCTS,
specifically the Court of the Gentiles. Clearing the area temporarily
undoubtedly raised Roman eyebrows, but considering it was a religious
issue about how to use the Temple, its a local matter--until the
Sadduccees bring Jesus to Pilate that is.
> <snip>
>
>>>I beg to differ! The early censorship and selective editing of what we know
>>>as the Bible, is a matter of record.
>>
>>You may beg all you like, and you may differ. However, you've grossly
>>misunderstood the situation.
>>
>
> It should also be pointed out that there were (and are) several canonical
> versions of the OT and the NT, which vary between Judaism (for the OT)
> and various Christian denominations.
> Regarding censorship : The churchfather Augustine didn't try to suppress
> the Apokryphae. He said that they held many truths but also too many
> errors than to be regarded canonical.
> His words (De civitate Dei XV) :
> 'In his autem apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen proptr multa falsa
> nulla est canonica auctoritas.'
> Another note for the Old Testament : The canonisation of the Judaic OT happened
> roughly 300BC - 150BC. The Rom. - Cath. canon of Trient (1545) includes
> 45 books - 6 more than the Judaic canon. Strange kind of censorship here ...
> <snip>
Good points both. And yes, along with Augustine was Jerome, among other
church writers; they often and usually distinguish between "acceptable
apocrypha" and "unacceptable" because they viewed it as heretical or
heterodox.
D. Spencer Hines
ALLEGORICAL...
Any Fool Should Understand That...
Vide infra.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:1tOdnSCDTJ8lbmbV...@comcast.com...
>> From the Roman point of view he also was a trouble-maker.
>
> Could be. Could have been. The Romans don't seem to have bothered
> with him much, not until the Temple affair, and even then it is the
> Temple guard, not the Romans, who arrest Jesus. While they were
> probably keeping an eye on him, to that point he hadn't done
> anything illegal...even saying "render to Caesar the things that are
> Caesar's" in regard to paying Roman taxes.
>
>> The Sadducees collected the taxes for the Romans; anything or
>> anyone disturbing that tax-farming asked for serious trouble.
>
> But Jesus didn't really do that. He wasn't against paying taxes, or
> even the "buying and selling" of sacrificial animals and
> offerings.....what he was against, and so were many key Pharisaic
> leaders, was the selling of these things IN THE TEMPLE PRECINCTS,
> specifically the Court of the Gentiles. Clearing the area
> temporarily undoubtedly raised Roman eyebrows, but considering it
> was a religious issue about how to use the Temple, its a local
> matter -- until the Sadduccees bring Jesus to Pilate that is.
CORRECT.
J Antero
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:iBSKk.260$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
> The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>
> ALLEGORICAL...
>
> Any Fool Should Understand That...
You're saying it's just a phoney story?
te...@tiglath.net
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:iBSKk.260$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>
> > The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>
> > ALLEGORICAL...
>
> > Any Fool Should Understand That...
>
> You're saying it's just a phoney story?
>
>
The Genesis is obviously NOT an allegory. It's nonsense.
An allegory happens when the literal represents a deeper parallel.
Moby Dick is an allegory. The whale symbolizes, uncontrollable nature
or pure evil, or other definite things.
But nobody knows what the creation tale of six days represents, what
its parallel might be. Surely not the Big Bang. There has to be
some parallelism between the symbol and what it represents. That is
LACKING in the Genesis.
It's not an allegory; it's just the beginning of the selling of an
invisible product that continues to this day. Pure superstitious
nonsense and people living 2000 years after it was thought up should
know better.
Larry Swain
> On Oct 20, 1:11 am, "J Antero" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>
>>"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:iBSKk.260$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>>
>>
>>>The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>>
>>>ALLEGORICAL...
>>
>>>Any Fool Should Understand That...
>>
>>You're saying it's just a phoney story?
>>
>>
>
>
> The Genesis is obviously NOT an allegory. It's nonsense.
No. Its not history. Its not allegory. It certainly isn't nonsense,
certainly not any more so or less so than any other creation myth on the
planet. It is most certainly myth, however.
D. Spencer Hines
Clearly some folks here don't know what an ALLEGORY is...
And need to retake English 101 and English Lit 101.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:4Mydnaovy_sHk2HV...@comcast.com...
> te...@tiglath.net wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 1:11 am, "J Antero" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
>>>messagenews:iBSKk.260$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>>>
>>>>The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>>>
>>>>ALLEGORICAL...
>>>
>>>>Any Fool Should Understand That...
>>>
>>>You're saying it's just a phoney [sic] story?
> No. Its [sic] not history. Its [sic] not allegory. It certainly
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>They are ALLEGORICAL.
>
>Clearly some folks here don't know what an ALLEGORY is...
>
>And need to retake English 101 and English Lit 101.
And anyone with any academic education whatever will know that
it's not enough merely to repeat an unsubstantiated statement,
such as your claim that the biblical creation stories are
allegorical. You have to back the claim up with some evidence and
rational arguments. Intelligent people see through your use of
capitals as a pathetic attempt to add weight to an empty claim.
You must explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously (thus
reversing a decade-long posting trend). Given the OED definitions
of allegory, "Description of a subject under the guise of some
other subject of aptly suggestive resemblance" and "an extended
or continued metaphor", your invocation of the word allegory
naturally begs the question: an allegory for what? Are you
implying, for instance, that the six days of creation are an
allegory for six billion years? Is God an ALLEGORY for AL A GORE?
Inquisitive people want to know what you really think.
Also, you would need to explain why you think it is wrong to
describe the biblical creation stories as "myths". Creation
stories in every other culture are referred to as myths, so one
wonders what it is about the Bible that makes it different, not
mythical but allegorical? Are you really a closet creationist?
Isn't it time for you to come out and express your full support
for Sarah Palin's fundamentalism?
James
te...@tiglath.net
> They are ALLEGORICAL.
>
> Clearly some folks here don't know what an ALLEGORY is...
>
Arguing by assertion as usual...
> And need to retake English 101 and English Lit 101.
You certainly don't. What is the Genesis an allegory of?
Where is the parallel symbolized by the six days of labor and one of
rest?
I bet you can't tell us.
te...@tiglath.net
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:03:22 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
>
Indeed.
Myths are mostly nonsense. The WHOLE of Greek mythology, for example,
is pure nonsense, much as my motorcycle plate is ZEUZ, and the fabric
of ancient Greek society is inseparable from those myths.
We are struggling to find what evolutionary force created in us the
need for religions. Richard Hawkins gives a plausible explanation,
but it seems that whatever use may have had we've outgrown it and for
a few millennia has been to homo sapiens sapiens as useful as a
swollen appendix
te...@tiglath.net
The poster seems to think that 'myth' and 'nonsense' are mutually
exclusive.
nonsense
1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning. 2. Subject matter,
behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd.
absurd
adj. 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
incongruous
adj. 1. Lacking in harmony; incompatible: a joke that was incongruous
with polite conversation. 2. Not in agreement, as with principles
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Never mind other creation stories. THIS one is not in agreement with
any known principles. It's absurd. Thus, it IS nonsense.
Jack Linthicum
The earliest leaders that could not force their followers to obey
them, called on obedience to some greater being. Think Socrates, I
would bet his ideas were pretty common amongst the Athenian citizenry
but saying them out loud is like some of the stuff that makes it on
talk-radio and TV. Shame shame that man is evil.
Horvath
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote this crap:
>The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>
>ALLEGORICAL...
>
>Any Fool Should Understand That...
How do you know that? Were you there?
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
Larry Swain
> They are ALLEGORICAL.
>
> Clearly some folks here don't know what an ALLEGORY is...
> And need to retake English 101 and English Lit 101.
Indeed, you may enroll in mind, Davey, anytime you wish. It's about
time you learn.
So tell us Davey, what's it an allegory of? What does the garden
represent? the serpent? Adam? Eve? God? 7days of creation? cattle?
morning and evening?
Larry Swain
So according to you Plato's dialogs are therefore nonsense, since in
many of them Socrates engages in myth-making to illustrate the main
point of the dialogs?
Larry Swain
> On Oct 20, 12:52 am, Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>te...@tiglath.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 20, 1:11 am, "J Antero" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:iBSKk.260$ok4...@eagle.america.net...
>>
>>>>>The Creation Stories in Genesis are OBVIOUSLY...
>>
>>>>>ALLEGORICAL...
>>
>>>>>Any Fool Should Understand That...
>>
>>>>You're saying it's just a phoney story?
>>
>>>The Genesis is obviously NOT an allegory. It's nonsense.
>>
>>No. Its not history. Its not allegory. It certainly isn't nonsense,
>>certainly not any more so or less so than any other creation myth on the
>>planet. It is most certainly myth, however.
>
>
> The poster seems to think that 'myth' and 'nonsense' are mutually
> exclusive.
As genres of literature, they certainly are.
> nonsense
>
> 1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning.
Well, the creation myths certainly don't fit this meaning
2. Subject matter,
> behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd.
Nor this one. Asking how the world came to be is a root question we
continue to ask and explore. That creation myths sought to answer this
question in a pre-scientific age doesn't make them foolish.
> absurd
>
> adj. 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
Comparative words....so creation myths are incongruous or unreasonable
in comparison to something else? Or internally according to some standard?
>
> incongruous
>
> adj. 1. Lacking in harmony; incompatible:
creation myths lack harmony? In what way? Incompatible with what? A
modern world view? Ok, that'd work, but that simply makes them
incongruous in relation to a modern world view, and hardly nonsense.
a joke that was incongruous
> with polite conversation. 2. Not in agreement, as with principles
Same here.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary
> Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
>
> Never mind other creation stories. THIS one is not in agreement with
> any known principles.
What principles? Principles of modern science? Principles of
psychology? Principles of mythology? What principles is this set of
creation stories (there's more than one after all) not in agreement with
that you feel free to categorize them as myth.
John Briggs
More like parables - wouldn't you say?
--
John Briggs
Vince
If it's allegory, all those bible belting evangelicals that Bush sucks
up to each day and Palin represents are easily described as Morons.
Here is what they claim
"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or
fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in
creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary
origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in
individual lives."
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
McCain of course depends on this Moronic vote
That is why he chose Palin
Say it Hines
The bible is an allegory
If you believe in the literal correctness of the bible you are a moron
who needs to retake a few courses
Vince