Origen of Alexandria (De Principiis I.2.1)- "The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."
Cyprian of Carthage (On the Advantage of Patience): "But that hope and faith may attain to their result, there is need of patience. For we are not following after present glory, but future, according to what Paul the apostle also warns us, and says, 'We are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we by patience wait for it.' Therefore, waiting and patience are needful, that we may fulfil that which we have begun to be, and may receive that which we believe and hope for, according to God’s own showing."
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book III)- "In us it is not only the spirit which ought to be sanctified, but also our behaviour, manner of life, and our body. What does the apostle Paul mean when he says that the wife is sanctified by the husband and the husband by the wife?"
Tertullian of Carthage (Against Marcion, Book V):-"Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became an apostle, not of men, neither by man; thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defense of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. Then you deny the Apostle Paul. I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it."
Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book IV.2.7)-"And many more Samaritans, it is said, when the Lord had tarried among them, two days, 'believed because of His words, and said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard [Him], and know that this man is truly the Saviour of the world.' (3) And Paul likewise declares, 'And so all Israel shall be saved;' (4) but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus. (5) Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]."
203 comments:
1 – 200 of 203 Newer› Newest»The Irenaeus quote, is that found in P. Oxy. 405 ?
Stromata - "The oldest extant manuscripts date to the eleventh century."
https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/person_100179090
https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/work_3401
https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/ae605c04-030c-4e64-b144-8122def023a0/content
Duncan, see https://www.academia.edu/10485335/Irenaeus_the_Scribes_and_the_Scriptures_Papyrological_and_Theological_Observations_from_P_Oxy_405_pre_pub_version_
Seneca was an ancient philosophy writer, yet see the dates for his MSS: https://www.textmanuscripts.com/medieval/seneca-de-beneficiis-illuminated-manuscript-91791
I could multiply the examples
We have other witnesses besides writers' MSS
Your point being? That the witnesses we have today are accurate to the originals?
And what is the dating on these other examples?
What next! are you going to argue that Josephus Testimonium in the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128) IS the original words?????
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/journals/alphav1/a1-04-interpolation.pdf
I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe that we have the real thing in the current OT and NT. Of course, I'm aware that corruptions entered the textual corpus and I know that what counts as original or genuine is probabilistic in human terms. And I know the difference between an original and a copy. I wasn't born yesterday :-)
The point is that while we don't have 2nd or 3rd century copies of the Patristic works, we could say the same thing about much of the world's great literature in the Greco-Roman tradition and more, including Plato and Aristotle and people whose works didn't survive at all.
You ask for more examples. While there are old fragments of Plato's works, see this link for Aristotle (his student): https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1564
Note the date there.
I've got to take care of other duties right now.
Stanley Porter, a notable GNT scholar, wrote a book titled How We Got the New Testament. I discussed his book on the blog and earlier wrote:
Regardless of why certain alterations were made to the GNT, Porter maintains that 80-90% of the [NT] text is "unquestionably established" based on the extant manuscripts: there is no good reason to believe that the GNT as a whole is unstable or fluid.
Regarding Aristotle:
"A prolific writer, lecturer, and polymath, Aristotle radically transformed most of the topics he investigated. In his lifetime, he wrote dialogues and as many as 200 treatises, of which only 31 survive."
https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle/
One more thing: that interpolation piece you like to bandy about, actually does nothing or very little to bolster the case for interpolations in Paul. Of course, we know that corruptions/interpolations crept into the sacred text. That is no big secret. However, to say things weren't corrected is another matter. But in any event, I find that article lacking in many respects.
Duncan, would you like to wrestle with the textual tradition for 1 Corinthians? How about reading volumes I & II of the Textual Commentary for the book, then see what you think:
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/296/
"No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading, such as the plan of this book necessitates, might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations of it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world. Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil, yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands." (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Frederic G. Kenyon, pages 10-11)
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-corinthians-1434-35
"Porter maintains that 80-90% of the [NT] text is "unquestionably established" based on the extant manuscripts: there is no good reason to believe that the GNT as a whole is unstable or fluid." - this is highly misleading, purely for the fact that it is based on "extant manuscripts", rather than what is know about the development of written documents over time. Weight of numbers is irrelevant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)
Mark 5:1-20,Luke 8:26-39 there are othe sources of evidence, but not for these accounts - https://art.thewalters.org/detail/7482/one-of-odysseus-men-transformed-into-a-pig/
Wallace has proven to be untrustworthy.
Wallace is imperfect like the rest of us, but what he writes in that article is an empirical fact. See also https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X9501705804
The number of extant MSS is part of the story but other factors determine what's the best reading. I'm sure Porter knows the factors better than most. Give God a little credit too.
Again, I'm not saying that numbers seal the deal for what's authentic or what's not, but I don't see the need to be overly skeptical about texts in general either (including the Bible).
Will we begin to question whether our copies of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Oedipus Rex, Cicero, Seneca and much more are all unreliable? Yes, we know texts change over time. Nevertheless, textual criticism has objective measures in place to yield the most probable reading, but that is all it can do.
"Will we begin to question whether our copies of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Oedipus Rex, Cicero, Seneca and much more are all unreliable? Yes, we know texts change over time. Nevertheless, textual criticism has objective measures in place to yield the most probable reading, but that is all it can do."
That sets no date for when it is written. This is where material evidence comes in and also our knowledge of the squabbles of these "church father's". The consensus is that the gospels were written after the genuine Pauline texts and that creates big problems. I was staggered to find out just how popular the Iliad and odysee were in the first and second centuries. The fact they change over time again is irrelevant as we actually have quite a large amount of material evidence as to how they were understood and even mimicked with Virgil. I have no doubt that there is genuine material in the letters that is attributable to the "apostle". But ACTS if full of mimesis. I have always maintained that the angelology is mythical, but now the evidence is mounting.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/210600319.pdf
Pg 7
As I understand textual criticism, the chief aim is to establish the most likely text. Other disciplines/sub-disciplines work to establish dates.
My point about the Iliad, Odyssey or Aeneid is just how do you know what was initially in them or just what they looked like in the first or second century CE. How can you trust testimony from Vergil or other witnesses? Why trust these materials over the OT or NT?
The testimony for the NT is more abundant than testimony for classical texts. As I've told you privately, the whole mimesis stuff is manufactured and fanciful. I don't buy it for Mark or Luke-Acts.
You've got a big lift to prove the mythical claim.
One thing I don't understand. If it's possible to believe in a deity, who is spirit (the Creator), why is it such a stretch to believe in other spirit beings who are creatures?
Justin Martyr did Edgar.. calling The Word "Another God" (or something of that line)
We do not have the material evidences. Coming back to the pigs -
"This suggests that whoever was the customer for the swineherder in the "region of the Gerasenes", it was not the Roman army to any significant extent. Nor was it the Jewish population of Galilee. Although it is likely that the larger towns of Galilee were predominantly Gentile, as was the Decapolis, the first-century civilian diet did not include a great deal of meat. Unless our swineherder had a monopoly on the commercial supply of pigs throughout the region, it is hard to explain such a substantial herd of swine."
For the miracle to have happened one would need the conditions for it to have happened in the first place and IMO that would be more of a miracle than the miracle. That the those were called "Legion" as opposed to "many" should give you a clue. Who would have been feeding a herd of this size in such a place. This is called suspension of reality or a Myth. And most likely a myth after 70CE.
This is what is really required for 3700 pigs.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/10/31/26-stories-of-swine-world-s-largest-pig-farm-opens-in-china_6002372_114.html
The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr) chapter 21.
"When we affirm that the Logos, God’s first-born, begotten without a sexual union, namely, our teacher Jesus Christ, was crucified, died, rose, and ascended to heaven, we are conveying nothing new with respect to those whom you call the sons of Zeus: Hermes, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Asclepius, who, though he was a great healer, was struck by a thunderbolt and so ascended to heaven; and Dionysus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Heracles, once he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those like her who have been declared to be set among the stars? And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you deem worthy to be forever immortalized and for whom you bring forward someone who swears to have seen Caesar, once having been consumed by fire, ascend into heaven from the funeral pyre."
So, is this an interpolation? And I do not think he is the only father to say things like this.
Or are you going to have it both ways?
https://smarthistory.org/scenes-from-homers-odyssey-via-graziosa/
Anonymous, yes, Justin Martyr called Christ, "another God" in his book, Dialogue with Trypho. I think he also did it more than once.
Duncan, here is another perspective on Mark: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0142064X18821558?casa_token=v_dHxJVTFc8AAAAA%3A5xrCfZv5v8ftT_bRk3ULJmsKagVZGsDWD8Suws-TpBJAp4moPvxRWlR6QwAXAr447ixyNjeIkHL1
Another thesis that discusses the pigs in Mark: https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/14356/1/MARCUS_THROUP_THESIS.pdf
No, I don't believe that Justin's claims are a result of interpolation. It's well known in patristic circles that some fathers thought the Greeks foreshadowed Christian "philosophy." But that view seems to have gone by the wayside over time. See also Tatian's Address to the Greeks.
See also https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0135.htm
If study is supposed to deal with an account but does not mention all the parameters do you think it can be any good? Where does he speak about the 2000.
ITS A MYTH!!!
"It's well known in patristic circles that some fathers thought the Greeks foreshadowed Christian "philosophy." - of course, it was because this is all a game of one-up-man-ship the fact that it faded out with later "fathers" again is irrelevant. As I have already said and can demonstrate further - this was the environment of the first and second century.
Justine seems very well versed in Greek mythology, very well versed indeed.
The study quotes Mark 5:13 on p. 176, which mentions the two thousand.
While you claim that Mark's account is mythical, it's funny how the first-century Christians viewed myths, according to the NT. They actually gifted a pejorative denotation to the word, mythos. Hence, it's strange that the early followers of Jesus would then turn around and create/adapt myths to proclaim their message.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with telling a story or parable to make a point, but they avowedly declared that the Gospel of Christ is not based on myths.
I would encourage you and anyone who thinks Mark's Gospels contains myths, to read Ralph Earle's remarks on 1 Tim. 1:4 in his book, Word Meanings in the NT. In part, he writes concerning mythos:
The term first meant “a speech, word, saying,” then “a narrative, story”—whether true or fictitious—and finally “an invention, falsehood” (Thayer). It is thus distinguished from logos, “a historical tale” (Vincent, 4:203). Kittel’s TDNT devotes no less than 34 pages to this word alone. Because of the vague and varied ways in which the term is used today by biblical scholars, it might be well to give it some attention. The article in TDNT is written by Staehlin. He notes that some use “myth” for that which is unhistorical and yet has religious value. Then he asserts: “But if the concept of myth is brought into antithesis to both historical reality and to truth as such, and if reality and truth are thought to be essential to genuine revelation and the only possible basis of faith, myth can have no religious value”
(4:765). Two results follow. Either the NT stories are “dismissed as myths, as errors and deceptions,” or a sharp line is drawn between Gospel and myth. He notes that the latter is “the judgment of the NT itself” which contrasts myth with history (2 Pet. 1:16) and with truth (2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14). His conclusion is incisive: “The Christian Church, insofar as it is true to itself, accepts this judgment that myth is untrue and consequently of no religious value” (ibid.). This is a welcome antidote to Bultmann!
Here is also a link for Tatian's Address to the Greeks: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0202.htm
He died circa 173 CE, so lived in the second century.
Tatian as teacher and the Greeks: https://www.academia.edu/44358804/Tatian_theodidaktos_on_mimetic_knowledge
"logos, “a historical tale”" - Anachronistic.
Its not difficult to xref - Titus 1:14.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3454/lxx/lxx/0-1/
No Hebrew equivalence.
So, you prove from any ecological methodology that a single place in this time can support 2000 pigs? If not, then we are done.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3003/vul/tr/0-1/
Of Latin origin NOT Greek.
https://gatesofnineveh.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/inventions-of-the-ancient-near-east-part-3-tatian-clement-of-alexandria-and-the-battle-for-history/
1. Oration to the Greeks [A6yo<; Itpo<; "EAA.riva<;] The date and place of this Greek composition are disputed: (a) in Rome between 150-172, or (b) outside of Rome following Justin's martyrdom (172-180). The text is preserved in three Greek manuscripts dating from the eleventh to twelfth centuries;
Tatian is in an argument here, but this can just be pot calling kettle.
This argument from ecology also stands for the sacrifices at Solomons temple.
Using 1 Timothy for your argument is also circular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#:~:text=Scholars%20Robert%20Grant%2C%20I.,140.
The point is that you claim Mark is weaving ir using a myth. I'm not arguing from 1 Timothy to refute your claim. Rather, the point is that it's highly unlikely an early follower of Jesus would have propagated myths to proclaim the Gospel. The point is what mythos meant to first-century Christians.
Whether there's a Hebrew equivalent for mythos or not doesn't help your case. Concepts can be held without a corresponding word. Second, Jews used Greek since Alexander.
How is logos qua historical tale anachronistic? Read some Homer and Bultmann. It's far from being anachronistic.
I could just as well have referenced 2 Peter 1:16ff. Same point.
I haven't devoted time to studying the capacity that herders of pigs had then, but I wouldn't rule it out.
The anachronistic term is "history", as we understand it today.
2 Peter 1:16 - is "wisdom teaching". And for all you know this is referring to the Gospel of John.
https://www.agrifarming.in/pig-feed-chart-and-pig-weight-chart-for-beginners#table-for-growing-pig-daily-feed-chart-and-water-intake
You are going to lose this one.
"Pigs were originally tuber-eating forest and swamp creatures. They had difficulty living in the deserts of the Middle East because they don't sweat and therefore can't cool themselves. When pigs were first domesticated there were vast forest areas in what is now Turkey and the Middle East. There was enough water and shade to support small number of pigs, but as population in the Middle East grew, deforestation degraded the environments best suited for the animals."
https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub408/entry-6384.html#chapter-5
It also becomes clear why Israel hated pigs.
"The point is what myths meant to first-century Christians." I disagree, one persons fact is another persons myth, Did all the "pagans" not believe there stories to be facts?
Of course, nothing is the exact same today as it was 2,000 years ago, but the Greeks began to distinguish history from myth well before the first century CE. "History" is not anachronistic in this context at all: as a matter of fact, a Greek is called "the father of history." It's from the Greek that we get the word historia.
2 Peter 1:16 states in part: οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες
I don't think it should be translated "wisdom teaching," and why on earth would Peter be referring to GJohn? While we're making suggestions, maybe it refers to the Gospel of Luke. Not.
For the record, I'm not trying to win anything but merely get the facts straight. I would concur that Israel/the Jews generally did not like pigs, but some new evidence apparently has been found that suggests some Israelites/Jews did eat pork. In any event, Christians in general found nothing wrong with consuming pork.
Do you really believe that one person's fact is another person's myth? That certainly doesn't hold in most cases and the only way it works is if we put "facts" in scare quotes.
Just because somebody believes his/her myth is factual doesn't make it so. A fact by definition corresponds with reality; it represents the actual state of affairs in the cosmos.
Two examples:
1) We have a team here called the Carolina Panthers that plays American football. So far this season, they're 0-5, I think. That is fact (albeit it a social fact). Players on the team might dispute their record and claim they're undefeated. But that would not make their claim factual, but rather, a misguided belief.
2) Suppose I make the statement, "Most animals are sexually dimorphic." Is it a fact? If the statement is a fact, then someone can't come along and present his/her "alternative facts" to rebut my statement. Either my opponent is right or I'm right. If my statement is a fact, it cannot be successfully rebutted.
Finally, as one of my students wrote one time: "An opinion is not a fact, and that's a fact."
The speed of light is 300,000 km/sec in a vacuum, no matter what Joe on the street thinks. The Trojan war either happened or did not happen: there is no median point in this case.
Merriam-Webster on "fact":
1. an actual occurrence. prove the fact of damage. 2. : a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
"Fact" in the first sense cannot be left up to the individual; the Sun is approximately 93,000,000 miles away from the earth or it's not; Euclidean squares have four sides, not five.
One can dispute the "facts" in the second sense of the word, and I guess this brings us back to the terminology, historical fact. However, if by "historical fact," one means that the event actually happened, we can't have alternative facts. But if one means the act of reporting what happened, there obviously can be alternative interpretations of the event.
But in the case of Greek myths, even they came to repudiate or leave behind their native stories, recognizing that they were objectively false, something that ancient philosophers and scientists had already perceived.
Here is the Sacra Pagina Commentary observation about 2 Peter 1:16:
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales: The Greek noun mythos
has a variety of meanings: “tale, story, legend, myth.” Here, as in the
Pastorals (see 1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14), it carries a
negative or pejorative sense. This impression is strengthened by the
perfect passive participle sesophismenois (“cleverly devised,
concocted”) that modifies it. The phrase probably represents a charge
made against the teachings associated with Peter and the apostles about
Jesus’ parousia and the Last Judgment rather than Peter’s charge
against the opponents.
So you think Herodotus account of the Persians is factual?
You are side stepping again, there is no way in the climate and with available resources that in one area localised enough to make a stampede into the sea of 2000 pigs. So your protestations about how Jews might be living is still irrelevant. They would have to be feeding them grain and that grain would not be from Israel. There are so many reasons why it would just not be true and I am sure if I looked around enough that I might find some Raman commentators calling Christianity a myth and this pig incident is certainly one.
https://listverse.com/2017/12/03/10-fabulous-tales-from-herodotus
Not everything Herodotus writes is factual, but he's still doing history. It's just not done the way Enlightenment historians do it. And I'm not sidestepping anything: I said upfront that I need to research ancient pigherding more, but I don't buy your inclination to rule out the account without a thorough examination. There is no way you can know 100% that the pig incident is a myth. The Romans said a lot of things about Christians that was false. Why trust them over the ecclesia?
You are arguing a straw man. I had already said ""history", as we understand it today."
Do I need to know 100%, in any case how could one know 100% ? I am sure if I could claim ideal conditions, feed supply etc.. IE a forested area full of acorns and truffles. You go ahead and I vestigate as much as you like but tell me this, why does every story need to be factual?
So jesus did ascend into the clouds, just like Romulus. One is real and one is a myth?
Where is the account where Jesus is then pursued to be put to death by a an angry mob of farmers and work men for the destruction of there lively hood? You go a head and suspend reality.
1. With regards to manuscript evidence, if we were going to disregard all ancient literature for which we don't have full early witnesses we'd have very very little. That a text is only extant in a late manuscript is not, in and of itself, reason to disregard it. People do textual criticism and they make arguments as to original readings insofar as we can make those arguments. The reason that the Testimonium Flavianum is not taken to be original is obviously not just because it's late, there are good reasons for positing it as a later interpolation.
As far as myth, is your claim that there are things in Mark that are Marken inventions? Or inventions of his sources, which do not go back to memory of the historical Jesus? If so fair enough, one can make historical arguments for specific events/sayings in the tradition, I'm obviously not going to rule out that Mark 5:1-20 was a post-easter tradition, but I'm also not going to rule out that it was a pre-easter tradition.
Here is what is NOT a good argument that it was a post-easter tradition: It sounds unlikely, it has features that are shaped/interpolated to serve the authors intentions, it exaggerates, it includes meta-normal phenomena.
There are also bad arguments for historicity (most of what methods employed by McGrew's for example).
But if you're claim is that this is of the genre of a myth, i.e. belonging to the genre of Ovid's writings as opposed to Plutarch's biographies, that's a completely different claim.
People like Celsus, who attacked Christians, took at face value that the gospels were largely reporting historical memory, he said it was the result of hysterical women, or easily duped rustics, but what the genre was seems to be basically taken for granted.
Duncan, there are many similar accounts of religious phenomena throughout the world's many religions. For instance, the founder of Daoism reportedly ascended to the clouds too. Yet there is a difference with Christ, but still, I never said every story has to be true. Would you call that false attribution?
Like Roman said, we need to consider the genre of the material. Moreover, I'm not ready to call the apostles liars yet. My view is either be a Christian and believe its teachings or don't.
"With regards to manuscript evidence, if we were going to disregard all ancient literature for which we don't have full early witnesses we'd have very very little. That a text is only extant in a late manuscript is not, in and of itself, reason to disregard it."- no one is disregarding and these argument always seem to become polarized and therefore useless. It seems that most early "quotations" of Paul are being used in similar arguments. Inter mingled with reasons why one writing is true and another is false. The problem is that most of the ones deemed to be false have disappeared. This is a one sided story.
I can only say what I have already said 2000 pigs in one location in that climate is more of a miracle than what is normally seen to be the miracle. I know my animal husbandry so Edgar can do all the research he likes to invent a theoretical situation where this is reasonable, but in practicality it is not. It is a myth & therefore its reason for being inserted may somewhat different to the ides of exorcism which is not seen to be so uncommon as Josephus seems to testify. If it has a veiled period meaning then we can only really speculate.
Celsus would see that the language was alien to his own beliefs so criticize it in the way you mention would be arguing against himself. I have already said it is the language of the time which is peppered with mythical stories, thats how you spoke and reasoned with the uneducated who looked the humoresque everywhere in statues images and plays.
"Yet there is a difference with Christ" There are DIFFERENCES with every one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf61GCQpAA
"Moreover, I'm not ready to call the apostles liars yet" - why would anybody want to do that when they did not write the books.
Yes, I know there are differences with every one of these accounts, but the way Jesus' resurrection and ascension affected the early followers of Christ is unique. Read the book by N.T. Wright about Jesus' resurrection and its juxtaposition with other "resurrection" accounts or check out Larry Hurtado's work on the Lord Jesus. Both works take a historical approach to the NT and Jesus' life. John Meier is another writer who does the same thing. The resurrection and ascension accounts are not just relegated to myth or story in NT scholarship, but they're investigated as to whether they're historical or not. Yet there is something different about the Gospels insofar as while they're not strict histories, they appear to be historical.
Oh, so Matthew didn't write his Gospel and Paul wrote none of the letters attributed to him? Is that your assertion? I guess John didn't write the epistles either. You must be privy to some knowledge that nobody else has :-)
See Bauckham here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsAEodyPnQ&pp=ygUQcmljaGFyZCBiYXVja2hhbQ%3D%3D
The NT letters are attributed to Paul, Peter, John, etc. If they took credit but did not write them, it throws their credibility into question and one who makes this claim is effectively calling the apostles/early Christians, liars.
No Mathew did not & Paul is not an apostle.
Psudopigrapaha also has introductions by name.
Okay Duncan, I'm done with this conversation, but I will research the pig issue and maybe get back to you one day. You can't know that Matthew didn't write it, that is just impossible. Secondly, Paul clearly said he was an apostle more than once and so did others. He wasn't one of the twelve but that does not mean he wasn't an apostle. Have a good day. Will talk another time.
The accounts feed of each other.
Yet the Pseudepigrapha are not canonical while the OT and NT books are. Secondly, those books differ in genre from the Gospels or epistles.
https://www.youtube.com/live/hE-uL8KFZwI?si=xBB9uKnlM302hdGd&t=1500
https://ospreypublishing.com/uk/army-of-herod-the-great-9781846032066/ 2000 soldiers.
"Herod's despotic rule has been demonstrated by many of his security measures aimed at suppressing the contempt his people, especially Jews, had towards him. For instance, it has been suggested that Herod used secret police to monitor and report the feelings of the general populace toward him. He sought to prohibit protests, and had opponents removed by force.[48] He had a bodyguard of 2,000 soldiers.[49] Josephus describes various units of Herod's personal guard taking part in Herod's funeral, including the Doryphnoroi, and a Thracian, Celtic (probably Gallic) and Germanic contingent."
Duncan, whether or not there were 2000 pigs, or the number is plausible, is not determinitive about whether or not the account is pre-easter memory, as you well know numbers are notoriously sketchy in ancient history, but that doesn't mean you write off the story, I mean imagine if we did that with any other historical writer, i.e. we wrote off all the accounts where the numbers seen unlikely, that's not how one does history.
My point is the way Celsus argued against, and engaged with the gospels shows us how he received them, i.e. what genre they were. He engaged with them as accounts of eye witnesses, NOT as handed down stories of the gods, or epic poetry.
The point was NOT that Celsus considered the stories accurate because if he considered them false they would threaten his own myths, the point is what Celsus took the gospels to be actually engaging in, i.e. these were not mythic poetry, they were accounts of a person who had lived decades (by now over a century perhaps) earlier. To call it myth is just to misunderstand the genre.
"why would anybody want to do that when they did not write the books."
I think it's pretty fair to say that the Q source came from eye people very close to the pre-easter traditions, I'd go so far as to say it's probably the Logoi of Matthew described by Papias, Mark is likely reporting Peter's kerygma. I have also not seen any compelling arguments that John wasn't written by the John mentioned by Papias ...
Look, there are reasonable debates about the historical Jesus and the origins of the gospels. But describing them as myth is just silly, I mean at this point we are at Richard Carrier or Robert Price conspiracy territory.
You are trying to polarise this discussion again. The work is being done. See https://www.routledge.com/Resurrection-and-Reception-in-Early-Christianity/Miller/p/book/9781138048270
To say legion and then say 2000 seems fair. If one were to say it should be 200 then legion would not fit but legion was generally recognise as 4000+, this has another meaning. So sorry, it is far from silly.
"I mean imagine if we did that with any other historical writer, i.e. we wrote off all the accounts where the numbers seen unlikely, that's not how one does history.". - don't just assert, explain why it valid to do this? Its a pleading argument.
So how do you treat the 300 Spartans Vs the 300 of Gideon?
How did Greeks treat there stories early on as opposed to how the Romans might see the same?
We don't even know if a Q existed. But you do know that there are conflicting accounts as to which John wrote the revelation. Writing a history of succession was never uncommon for those who wanted to claim authority as the latest link in a chain.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Resurrection_and_Reception_in_Early_Chri/V27fBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT13&printsec=frontcover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVPOvq6OzqU
Still used today - "the demons did it!"
Duncan.
What claim are you making? Are you saying that because the numbers don't seem plausible, that the story thus has no historical basis? Or are you saying that because the numbers don't seem plausible certain aspects of the story seem invented? The demoniac says that he is called legion because there are many of us, I actually suspect there is more going on in terms of a political point being made here, but I don't see see what point is being claimed here. To me I see no reason why this story couldn't have a historical basis, let's say there were 200, why wouldn't legion fit? 200 of any large animal would seem like a lot, and I don't see why one wouldn't use the term legion; If you saw 200 ducks no one would bat an eye if you said "there's an army of ducks there," and the idea of multiple powerful spirits oppressing a man and turning him violent fits very well with the idea of the Roman military.
BTW, all I'm claiming is that the conclusion that the account pre-easter memory does not follow from the supposed implausibility of the numbers.
I know there are conflicting accounts as to which John wrote revelation, I didn't make any claim about the authorship of revelation. Q may or may not have existed, it likely did however, but my point is that it is quite plausible that the gospel accounts are grounded in pre-easter traditions, especially the synoptic, and that that these pre-easter traditions themselves go back to the apostles.
I have not read any Richard Miller, I read seen some of the work of Dennis MacDonald, which seems to be rather similar ... to put it lightly, MacDonald's general thesis is a stretch.
Jack bull Phd - comments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cD2VGbgEdA&t=2850s
Miller studied under MacDonald but his approach is very different but the data is all converging. The reviews so fare are vary favorable because they literally have no choice. The documentation speaks for itself.
Legion is a Latin term associated with the massive cohorts - saying army is not the same. One has to be careful of anachronism for how we use Legion today.
"Or are you saying that because the numbers don't seem plausible certain aspects of the story seem invented?" - no, I am saying that the whole account is invented, but for a reason I am still trying to grasp.
A word of warning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ulo6LyugEc
A response to folks like Miller, Carrier and Bull: https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=ebooks
Not a response to Richard C Miller - the wrong Miller. His work is newer than this paper.
Something he has just posted -
"Severe contradiction in Ascension setting locations
One may note that greater variance in depiction typically corresponded with those segments of the narrative with greater heights in mythologization, e.g., the birth / origin narratives and the postmortem narratives. With myth and legend, getting the story straight was not the point. These were epilogical appendages applying cultic exaltatio, not taken as hard ontological events in time and space. The same holds for all ancient mythography. Story malleability itself for anthropologists serves as a modal sign that one is dealing with myth and legend.
Mk 16:14 .. Galilee
Mt 28.16 .. Chosen mountain/hill in Galilee
Lk 24:51 .. Bethany
Acts 1:9 .. Mount of Olives
I would place the Markan long-ending ascension in Galilee (Mk 16:9-14), where he was promised to meet his disciples (16:8). John also has the final appearances in Galilee (Jn 21), the final setting transition in that narrative. Luke and Acts both have Jesus commanding the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until after his ascension and the spirit is given. Matthew has him implicitly launch from a chosen mountain/hill in Galilee, building more from Mark (as typical of Mt)."
BTW, if you have not read the book yet then you cannot say what it is like.
www.oc.edu/uploads/images/documents/Rosser-Signaling-Legion-Dilogismos-6.2022.pdf
Well, I said "folks like" Miller. I had in mind his denial of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Well if you look at the Xreferences R.C.Miller gives to the ending of G.Mark, the ancients knew exactly what was being implied & it was nothing new.
"parallelomania" is another straw man, as even MacDonald does not claim that all his parallels are valid. If only one or two can be well established then the methodology is sound and it is convincing more over time. Those who have more experience of the source material and thematic content.
Interaction with Miller's assertions: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/pumpkinification.html
So, let's assume that Paul; wrote Corinthians in the first century. You and Miller are telling me that all that talk of resurrection in the first epistle is to be taken as myth? Okay, glad to know I'm still dead in my sins.
Btw, that dissertation does interact with Richard Miller (2015). Use search term: Miller, Richard. I didn't have time earlier to confirm this point.
Well this second one is ad homimin drivel from someone who admits that he did not read the work.
Ehrman points or the direct contradiction between Jesus and Paul about the requirements for salvation.
https://youtu.be/_lDz6XCEgMI?si=ssTODJymryUUolOa
I have heard all the mental gymnastics to attempt explain this.
"Given their ancient Jewish monotheistic context" Pg 14 - there is no evidence for this and the reason for the gospels level of polish is just that, polish and revision. All our examples are relatively late and the fact that we have large amounts of manuscript evidence only bolsters this.
The work that Jack Bull is doing with the patristic evidence also supports miller. This is a convergence of data points.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10001/10001-h/10001-h.htm
https://academic.oup.com/yale-scholarship-online/book/31154?searchresult=1
Guess what, Duncab, scholars have replied to German point for point. He is not infallible.
Miller's book description claims the resurrection talk of the NT is mythical. He claims that early Christians took it that way, but that's not what the sources from any period suggest. The resurrection of Christ has long been foundational for Christians and real.
I meant to type Duncan earlier
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-behavior-of-richard-c-miller-author.html
This is character assassination and more importantly, slander. Perhaps this guy will end up in court someday.
https://nakedpastor.com/blogs/news/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-richard-miller-on-the-resurrection
It's worth it because it contains all the references necessary to get a grasp of overwhelming evidence that supports his argument.
"German" ??? If you mean Miller the please tell me where?
Ignatian letters: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476993X20914798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_imperial_cult I am sure they did not encourage people to see this as myth either.
Apologies, I'm using my tablet and have to deal with autocorrect. German should be Ehrman. Numerous scholars have replied to him.
Well we will have to see what Jack Bull's research into Ignatius recensions will yield. Early days yet.
My point with the "army" was a modern day analogy, i.e. not related to the ancient concept of Legion or the modern concept of army, but just about how language works in the relation to phenomena, and how exaggeration plays a role, especially in oral re-tellings.
I have to say I really don't know anything about Dennis Miller's approach, I know MacDonalds and I find it unpersuasive. But I'll check out Miller and see what arguments he provides.
The arguments about mytholozation and the such (not from Miller but from others in the hypercritical perspective) sometimes apply what I consider faulty methodology, i.e. a narrative follows a specific typological trope therefore it is not historical memory, this does not follow, in fact much of ancient history is presented in certain tropes and patterns; or that because there are contradictions, or implausible events, it cannot be grounded in historical memory, this just does not follow, memory and story telling are often not analytically accurate or always free from contradiction, people are complicated.
With Jesus and Paul ... yeah, they had different theologies and different soteriologies, I don't see why that would be problem theologically.
Paul's entire theological and soteriological system was based on reflection over Christ's death and resurrection; Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet proclaiming the Kingdom of God and a restoration of torah principles and the overthrow of the powers by God and his Kingdom. That being said Jesus did have a theology of martyrdom, i.e. that one can give one's life on behalf of others; but I don't think one could argue that this theology was the same one as Paul's.
Does that mean they are incompatible? I don't think so at all, both theologically any historically. I think it's very probably that Paul knew the gospel traditions and that Paul was just as much shaped by the synoptic tradition than vice versa. I find the arguments that the synoptics follow a Pauline perspective faulty, maybe Luke, but even with Luke one can see where Paul is being followed pretty clearly.
Mark and Q I think are likely not even aware of the Pauline mission, (I follow Crossley and Casey on Mark), and if Q is Q doesn't really care about it. Matthew likely knows Paul but does not agree.
The point I'm making is that Although Paul and Jesus clearly had different theologies and soteriologies, Paul is much more a development rather than a departure.
One thing I did see about Dennis Miller, is someone showed me a video of him on a podcast talking about why he left the SBL and how it's full of theology and not rigorous enough. Honestly, when I heard his complaints, it basically boiled down to
1. "no one who isn't a philosophical naturalist as an assumption can be taken seriously"
This is silly, what matters is the arguments, a lot of cultural anthropology explicitly puts aside western naturalistic assumptions so that they can DO their cultural anthropology, that doesn't make them not serious scholars it actually makes them serious scholars. Just because naturalism is the standard philosophical tradition in the west doesn't make it normative nor does it make any departure from it unserious.
2. "people who want to take ideological/theological conclusions out of their historical findings cannot be taken seriously"
Yeah people do this in every field, how many people doing history in any era will include things that make it relevant today ... I don't see what's wrong with that at all.
3. "there are ideological pressures on scholars in biblical studies"
That's true in every field, the idea that there is ANY field in which there are no ideological pressures or boundaries is a fantasy.
search "ANF, 4:233." here Edgar, you might find it interesting. (read slightly before and after)
https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html
What you think Paul thought is completely inaccessible to us. We only have the writing and as far as this goes for evidence, he did not know much at all.
"narrative follows a specific typological trope therefore it is not historical memory, this does not follow, in fact much of ancient history is presented in certain tropes and patterns; " - I am going to ask the obvious here, without material evidence how we know the events are historical over mythical?
Its Richard C Miller I am referring too, not Denis Miller, but I think you are referring to the same person? The video I think you are referring to, I will post after this comment, but its upto Edgar to accept or not, I know he does not like the channel this is on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPbj0VUjLU
Thanks Anonymous
Here is another scholar who is weighing in on this, Robyn Faith Walsh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak4_c6IdZRg
I will let Roman answer your last query, Duncan, but I personally like the distinction NT Wright discusses in one of his books, the distinction between historia and res gestae. The former refers to the act of reporting "history" or giving an account of events, but the latter refers to what actually occurred--the deeds themselves. Hence, there is a sense in which something can be historical without accompanying evidence. Moreover, if one defines history in a non-Enlightenment fashion like Wolfhart Pannenberg did, then it allows for God to act within history and do things like raise Jesus from the dead. Are we going to have evidence that this event happened? It depends on what one means by evidence. For while we don't have artifacts associated with t event, we do have eyewitness testimony.
In philosophy, one encounters lots of testimonies in Greek philosophy. This means that we have access to what Aristotle proclaims about one of the pre-Socratic thinkers, but we don't necessarily have the actual writing of the philosopher. In some cases, we have fragments of what a pre-Socratic wrote but to fill out the picture, one must look to the testimonia or to the historian, Diogenes Laertius. In the case of Socrates, he didn't write anything down like Jesus, so we rely on those who knew him and heard Socratic teaching.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/991403?typeAccessWorkflow=login
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43297518?typeAccessWorkflow=login
If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that is not eyewitness testimony of a bodily Resurrection.
Even if you did have the writings of the philosopher I dont think it would matter if we still knew that it was 10 copies removed. Its far more story than time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8qOcnRQJQQ
The Gospels contain eyewitness testimony, plus see Acts 1:1-3, 8; 10:40-43.
Preview of a study: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_sgpublisher/produkte/leseproben/9783161574764.pdf
Thorough discussion of Ignatius and Polycarp: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476993X20914798
Open Access article at Brill: https://brill.com/view/journals/vc/75/5/article-p469_1.xml#:~:text=Abstract,letter%20without%20reaching%20a%20settlement.
Traction.
https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/216118407/FULL_TEXT.PDF
I don't think that dissertation gives MacDonald as much traction as you think. Granted, the writer believes MacDonald offers contributions to the study of Luke-Acts, but there are also limitations with his approach.
https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/39284/LeavenworthJB_2022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
MR here = the middle recension of Ignatius
Leavenworth writes:
"As others have previously demonstrated, none of the challenges to the MR have gained widespread support. What I suggest—in opposition to Moss, and more recently, to Given and Vinzent—is that the evidence actually shows that the ‘Gordian Knot’ has been essentially unraveled (with residual issues) and not carelessly severed as suggested.39 Since others have already gone to great lengths to do so, this section will not address each of the
specific challenges to the MR that have arisen since the publication of Lightfoot’s defense.4 Instead, it makes more sense to briefly discuss the reasoning for viewing the MR as the closest recoverable representation of the original Ignatian corpus. As the following will demonstrate, most MR challenges rely on several common assumptions that are not always well founded."
Have you seen ms.sin.ar.505 ? I cannot say much without it.
"What you think Paul thought is completely inaccessible to us. We only have the writing and as far as this goes for evidence, he did not know much at all."
It's clearly not completely inaccessible to us, because we have his writings, and they reflect things he thought. Also, in Paul's writings, one does find that a lot of his ethics coincide with Jesus's teachings, and similar themes are repeated, you get the eschatological reversal, an intensification of certain ethics, apocalypticism; I also don't think this can be explained by saying the gospels post-date Paul, because these themes are often put in contexts that don't match Paul's use of them at all.
""narrative follows a specific typological trope therefore it is not historical memory, this does not follow, in fact much of ancient history is presented in certain tropes and patterns; " - I am going to ask the obvious here, without material evidence how we know the events are historical over mythical?!"
Well if by "mythical" you're referring to the genre, one can do literary criticism, if you're using mythical as a short hand to mean legendary, or made up by the author one looks at arguments for why an origin in memory is more or less likely than an origin in invention.
I know Robyn Walsh's methods, I think there are problems with it, there are many things I could say, what I will say is that I think that there are very good arguments for the synoptic traditions being grounded in non-elite circles, and that there are also good arguments for why both Q and Mark did not come from elite scribes, and were both pre-70 CE. What we know about literacy rates is often over stated, it's largely conjecture.
Personally, I think studies by Richard Horsley, James Crossley, and others who have taken class analysis more seriously have actually been able to come up with more plausible reconstructions.
"I also don't think this can be explained by saying the gospels post-date Paul, because these themes are often put in contexts that don't match Paul's use of them at all." - but are they being used to make the same arguments? Also how we understand the genuine letters is also slanted by using Luke-ACTS as a foil. It is anachronistic to do so. I think there is a fairly solid consensus that it comes much later.
I see no real reasons to date the gospels in the form we have them to an early date, other than to claim fictitious association with the Apostles.
"synoptic traditions being grounded in non-elite circles, and that there are also good arguments for why both Q and Mark did not come from elite scribes, and were both pre-70 CE. " - I can agree with this within limits.
https://www.psephizo.com/reviews/how-important-was-class-struggle-in-the-early-jesus-movement/
Robyn Walsh's is probing the possibilities of a world without Q & Mcdonald a very different form of Q. I think focusing too much on a theoretical document if unproductive.
https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_x_easters.htm
Duncan, I have not seen the Arabic MS for Ignatius' MR, but this scholar might be able to help: https://www.academia.edu/41636523/Four_New_Syriac_Witnesses_to_the_Middle_Recension_of_the_Ignatian_Corpus
Duncan, to also address your question about history and material evidence, Heidelberg University delineates how one usually does history qua a discipline (i.e., reporting events):
"The most commonly recognised historical methodologies include: Palaeography (study of historical handwriting), diplomatics, the study of documents, records and archives, chronology (establishing the dates of past events), the study of publications, epigraphy (study of ancient inscriptions)."
There is more than one way to do history; not every part of being a historian involves sifting through artifacts.
https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/en/study/all-subjects/historical-methodology
They are all good avenues for research but "the study of publications, epigraphy (study of ancient inscriptions),....,historical geography,..., codicology (the study of handwritten documents), numismatics (the study of coins), sphragistics (study of seals)," have to be weighted. Those with the widest period circulation & those which are less likely to be second hand productions. One has to look at the probabilities of coins and inscriptions being withing the realms of common culture more than a text. For period understandings the common markers need to be compared first. It is complex but there is a hierarchy of probability.
We need papers like this for the Roman era - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1773121?typeAccessWorkflow=login
Duncan, don't have a lot of time now, but I agree with your comment regarding Q.
I think the scholar's name is also MacDonald rather than McDonald. One of my friends with the former name recently passed and I dearly miss him: he would regularly talk about good old Caledonia.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15462/was-%CF%85%E1%BC%B1%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6-a-latter-addition-to-mark-11
I also note someone's comment regarding Irenaeus, but this comes back to the rescention, so I would not hang to much on it yet. Vatican's is a Roman production so that would fit.
Regarding Vaticanus:
"We don't know where Codex Sinaiticus came from or what it's history is. Our best guess is that Vaticanus, like Codex Sinaiticus, was almost surely produced in Egypt, probably in Alexandria.
How do we know this?
There was, starting in the 2nd century BC, a very strong tradition of making accurate copies of secular books in Alexandria. This tradition bled over into biblical books, so that the scribes there of the biblical books also knew how to make very, very careful copies.
How reliable is this manuscript? Vaticanus is a better manuscript than Sinaiticus for portions of the New Testament. But Sinaiticus is better for other portions."
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/the-story-of-codex-vaticanus
Someone in that thread said that "son of God" does not appear in Irenaeus: I haven't fact-checked that statement yet, but it sounds right. As far as recessions go, how is that an issue for Irenaeus? All the talk about recensions pertains to Ignatius of Antioch, a different church father.
Recessions should be recensions
"but are they being used to make the same arguments? Also how we understand the genuine letters is also slanted by using Luke-ACTS as a foil. It is anachronistic to do so. I think there is a fairly solid consensus that it comes much later."
They aren't being used to make the same arguments, Paul is doing post-easter theology, explicitly, Jesus's sayings are doing something completely different. I agree with you on Luke-Acts. However, the materials for big chunks of Luke predate Paul (i.e. Q and Mark, Mark is contentious, but the arguments have persuaded myself). Acts is attempting to soften the inter-Apostle disagreements, which Paul is in the middle of in his letters.
"I see no real reasons to date the gospels in the form we have them to an early date, other than to claim fictitious association with the Apostles."
For Mark, see James's Crossley and Maurice Casey's arguments that Mark was unaware of a gentile mission, for Q there has been a ton of reconstructive work, none include concern for, or against, a gentile mission, and there is the assumption of a Jewish/Torah observant audience, there is also no sign of any concern for the delay of the Parosia. (I know you already agree with this within limits, just laying out some reasons).
As for Matthew, Luke, and John. I'm agnostic, Luke is certainly post Paul, Matthew is certainly post Paul, although both might be concurrent with Paul, there's no reason to think they aren't. John is probably much later, and I agree with the mainstream that one must be very cautious about using it as a source for the historical Jesus with confidence. Although I also don't think one can rule out historical memory.
The review of "Class struggle in the New Testament" I think many of the critiques have been answered already, and some of the critiques are misplaced .. for example:
"if Jesus was a peasant leader in a class struggle, why are the majority of his dealings in the gospels clearly not with the poor? Why are the issues that he teaches on so rarely focussed on the material needs of the poor? If this was his agenda, how does one explain why it is so little featured in all our early Christian literature?"
The first question is easily by Myles and Crossley in their later volume, Jesus's mission included the rich, i.e. to repent, but it's also overstated, there are many individual stories of Jesus engaging with the rich because those would be generally more impactful and significant for the movement than the regular engagement with the poor/the peasantry.
The second two questions have a false premis, Jesus's teachings and parables are constantly focused on the material needs of the poor ... if one understands the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" in the terms the historical Jesus did, i.e. of eschatological reversal, including one of wealth, echoing the Sabbatical year, the entire ministry was about the material needs of the poor. It's also not at ALL sparse in early Christian literature ... I mean why was Paul travelining around the Roman empire? The Didache, James, Revelation are FULL of class tropes.
"Robyn Walsh's is probing the possibilities of a world without Q & Mcdonald a very different form of Q. I think focusing too much on a theoretical document if unproductive."
Fair enough, time will tell though, This reminds me of historical Jesus studies, it goes through waves, but in the end the general Schweitzerian apocalyptic prophet always wins out, with some variation in details.
The same goes with the synoptic problem, generally speaking, you have other models, but so far some form of the 2 source hypothesis always wins out.
Macdonald's Q is not persuasive at all to me, in my opinion his methodology is flawed from the get go.
BTW, regarding material evidence, that there would be material remains of Jesus ... a peasant artisan and prophet/agitator, is ridiculously unlikely, which is why anyone there are claims of some material evidence I assume it's phony. Why on earth, out of all the millions of anonymous peasants in the levant, even those who had some local importance (prophets, local intellectuals, rebels, local leaders), who left nothing behind, would we expect material evidence for this singular one.
Roman, I would not expect material evidence of Jesus and that is not what I am talking about. From this period I think there is more evidence for Jesus than just about anybody. But is more, better?
We have inscriptions for Pontius Pilate & coins - https://www.antiquities.co.uk/shop/ancient-coins/selection-of-pontius-pilate-bronze-prutah/
These are better forms of evidence, but I am not discounting other forms. However what I am saying is that if they are using terms like "son of god" for Caesars in that period and there is material evidence of the the usage and how it is generally understood we MUST take it into account. I am sure you picked up what these videos had to say about "biblical greek". If these documents are being circulated I am fairly confident about how they are being understood, ie. Not the same as they are being interpreted today.
Edgar, Sorry about that, my brain gets fuddled from time to time. I have a very technical job and my focus is not always great after 9 hours of that, regarding Irenaeus etc.
I love this wording - "Our best guess is that Vaticanus, like Codex Sinaiticus, was almost surely produced in Egypt, probably in Alexandria."
DEFINITELY, MAYBE ;) How people bend a lack of evidence to there will. So they had a strong tradition of literacy, but ROME did not?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulpian_Library
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286482466_Literacy_or_Literacies_in_Rome
Duncan, it's understandable, especially when you combine long hours at work. No biggie and we all stumble every now and again with our tongues :-)
Feel free to correct my typos anytime.
You've probably done your share of reading about Vaticanus. A number of things that I read give about the same answer: the origin and provenance of Vaticanus is uncertain. We simply don't know how it originated exactly nor its provenance. But why pick Rome?
Granted, some Romans knew Greek and knew it well, but many did not. Did the Romans generally know Greek well enough to copy a Greek MS? I know from studying Roman education and curricula along with the church fathers that education alone would not guarantee that a bilingual Roman would be capable of copying something like Vaticanus. IMO, the best answer that we can give about Vaticanus for now is who knows where it originated or how?
B. Nongbri: 'Yet both the date and the provenance of Codex Vaticanus are open to question. . . The location of the production of Vaticanus is generally thought to be either Alexandria in Egypt or Caesarea Maritima in Palestine. H. J. M. Milne and Theodore Skeat made a case for Caesarea (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus [London: British Museum, 1938]). Skeat vigorously argued this point again in 1999 (“The Codex
Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine,” JTS 50 [1999]: 583–625, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jts/50.2.583). Skeat writes with the confidence of having settled the issue, but in this later argument he is strangely silent on the salient objections raised by Kirsopp Lake in his review of Scribes and Correctors in CP 37 (1942): 91–96. Further reasons to doubt Skeat’s certainty are provided in two studies by D. C. Parker: Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 19–22; and Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, Lyell Lectures, Oxford, 2011 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 73–74. For recent bibliography on Vaticanus, see Patrick Andrist, ed., Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209): Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001), Contributions supplémentaires, HTB 7 (Lausanne: Zèbre, 2009).'
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1352.2016.2803
Also see this article from 2020: https://publicera.kb.se/sea/article/view/15079/12016
Just to clarify, when I talk about Romans copying Greek MSS, I'm not talking about just a Roman citizen like Paul, but I meant someone like Augustine, Tertullian, Cicero, Virgil, who could copy an MS like Vaticanus.
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004236554/B9789004236554-s019.xml
Ancient literacies
"But is more, better?"
I mean, it depends.
"These are better forms of evidence, but I am not discounting other forms. However what I am saying is that if they are using terms like "son of god" for Caesars in that period and there is material evidence of the the usage and how it is generally understood we MUST take it into account. I am sure you picked up what these videos had to say about "biblical greek". If these documents are being circulated I am fairly confident about how they are being understood, ie. Not the same as they are being interpreted today."
I agree, son of god was an imperial title, as well as a messianic one, I'm pretty sure Mark knew the imperial usage and had it in mind (portraying Jesus as a kind of anti-Caesar).
I agree on the biblical greek thing, it's a silly notion, but I don't know many scholars who actually use the term. Do some pastors? Sure ... but this is true with any endeavor where you have a theoretical academic approach with experts vrs. an applied approach with non experts.
But I don't use "biblical greek," although there is a specific spetuagintal style that can be referred to (like King James English).
"DEFINITELY, MAYBE ;) How people bend a lack of evidence to there will. So they had a strong tradition of literacy, but ROME did not?"
How do they know Rome did not have a tradition of literacy? Are they taking anthropological studies and ethnographic studies and applying them? Do they have textual data? How are they defining literacy? Is someone who isn't reading homer but is reading certain documents, graffiti, etc etc "literate"?
Also I see no reason why it would be suprising if a subject culture had a strong tradition of literacy whereas a dominant culture did not. Socio-Economic and Political power did not lay in education in those days, that's a pretty modern phenomenon, nor did it lay in literacy. It lay in land and the ability to wield military might.
For the wealthy, the ruling class, education, philosophy, poetry, literary culture, the arts were a luxury pass time. If (I'm not saying it IS the case, but if it were the case) for the Jews, literary culture was not just a luxury pass time but part of their cultic practices, it would make sense that there would be more literacy in the lower classes; that would not, however, corrolate at all with any higher levels of political, economic, or social power (People didn't have "careers" back then, they had land, or no land).
https://brill.com/view/journals/mnem/75/1/article-p10_4.xml?language=en
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/insc/hd_insc.htm#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20probably%20as%20many,)%2C%20both%20inscribed%20in%20Greek.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Greek_inscriptions_in_Rome
Let me stress that one should not under estimate the influence of Homeric stories in the first and second century and beyond, throughout the empire.
People tend to talk about the flooding of the Colosseum for sea battles, but it was used for far more than blood sports, I am still looking into this but they had plays held there also.
Evidence form Pompeii and even England, both in the first century.
I am sure that many more had it read to them than read it.
https://blog.oup.com/2013/12/scenes-from-the-iliad-in-ancient-greek-art/
https://rutlandcountymuseum.org.uk/homers-the-iliad-amazing-roman-mosaic-found-in-rutland/
Literacy was something to be flaunted for those that could -
https://cdn.thecollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/image4-9.jpg?width=1400&quality=55
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2023/master-sculpture-from-four-millennia/a-roman-marble-portrait-head-of-a-greek-man-of
I don't need other peoples opinions, all I need is accurate dating for the material evidence that we do have.
I think that there were pens for sale, not scribes who worked with dictation, but rather like biographers today who have the skill to embellish and tune documents to be read for the common pallet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5weRIYhjQ
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76394422.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/1256261/JH_Humphrey_Literacy_in_the_Roman_World_Journal_of_Roman_Archaeology_Supplementary_Series_no_3_Pp_198_9_figures_available_from_the_editor_of_
https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/1-homer-the-classic-in-the-age-of-virgil/
https://www.berksarch.co.uk/index.php/the-archaeology-of-roman-literature/#:~:text=Literacy%20is%20related%20to%20power,and%20place%20and%20individual%20ability.
"Literacy is related to power and identity; it enabled an individual to rise through the ranks of the Roman empire. The level of literacy within the empire has been estimated at 15%, but this would have varied enormously according to time and place and individual ability."
Two things that eventually made a huge difference in literacy rates are the Reformation and the printing press. Rotary Intl. likewise aims at increasing "functional literacy" around the world.
One more for now: https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3729
"There are also many different levels of literacy, which complicate the picture, from the basic ability to figure out a short message, to functional literacy or ‘craft literacy’, to the skill required for reading a literary papyrus (reading and writing skills may also have been separate). However, certain broad generalizations are possible. The ‘mass literacy’ of modern industrial countries was never achieved in the ancient world (cf. Harris (see bibliog. below), who believes a maximum of 20–30 per cent literacy was achieved, and that in Hellenistic cities). Women, slaves, and the lower social levels would usually be less literate."
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_romulus.html
Interesting that Constantine mints a coin and when.
This is also interesting, "Virgilian"
https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/TabVindol118
"In addition it is worth comparing several inscriptions painted in red on a cave-wall in south-east Spain, datable to the imperial period (1st-3rd centuries a.d.), see Gonzáles Blanco (1987). Several of these are in verse and are clearly Virgilian, even though they do not exactly reproduce known lines of Virgil; see especially Panel III which the editors describe (p.223) as an ‘adaptación de la Eneida de Virgilio’ (lines 1.139, 166-7, 310-11, 3.229-30)."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/virgil-quote-roman-jar-180982426/
I know how influential Homer was in the ancient world. That's not why I find MacDonald's thesis unpersuasive.
My point with literacy was NOT that it had no corrolation with social mobility, but rather:
1. literacy has to be defined, i.e. is it a kind of scribal literacy? Or a functional literacy.
2. One cannot assume class simply based on whether or not one has functional literacy, there is no reason to believe that one can generalize reading cultures across the empire, nor can one assume a 1:1 corrolation between social status and functional literacy.
My go to when discussing class in the ancient world is this classic:
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/class-struggle-in-the-ancient-greek-world-9780715617014/
Also see Kloppenborg's work, Sarah Parks, Bazzana, and many others on the q source and it's origin in non-elite "village scribes"
"That's not why I find MacDonald's thesis unpersuasive." - are you just going to leave it at that?
https://www.academia.edu/44590033/The_Trouble_with_Q
More info about ancient literacy. Btw, I agree that it should be defined precisely:
https://denverseminary.edu/article/reading-and-writing-in-the-time-of-jesus/
"That's not why I find MacDonald's thesis unpersuasive." - are you just going to leave it at that?
What I find unpersuasive are the actual examples and the inferences made, i.e. I agree that Homer was widespread, and I would not make a firm distinction between "jewish" and "greek" culture here, I have no doubt that educated Jews would have been educated in classical greek literature.
The problems are with the actual inferences being made from the data, what MacDonald sees as examples of Mimesis are almost all just extremely loose and vague parallels, parallels which one could find all over the place in unconnected literature.
Here's one article (that I basically agree with) that examines the claims MacDonald makes critically:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30041066?
Here's another:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1206875?
The thing is when one sees, for example, allusions to Moses in Matthew, or Elijah/Elisha, or even Imperial ideology, the connection is obvious and no squinting is necessary. The same with, for example, Homer and Virgil.
BTW, I know and appreciate the work of William Arnal, and I would agree that most reconstructions of Q have serious problems, (some more than others), however, the Farrar hypothesis has, in my mind, been basically disproven by the studies (by Christopher Tuckett and others) reconstructing the necessary scribal practices for the various theories, The Farrar hypthothesis requires Luke to have a virtually impossible scribal method, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UayoUTwGLlg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgsq6q26qc
The Matthean posteriority hypothesis suffers similarly.
In the end, although no set reconstruction is possible (why would we expect to be able to reconstruct it completely, could we reconstruct Mark with Matthew and Luke?) a bare bones reconstruction displays a collection with a set and distinct ideology, a set and distinct theme, a set and distinct genre, and an internal coherency.
The big argument against Q, the places where Luke (or Matthew) prefers Matthew's (or Luke's) readings rather than Mark, which means that one has to posit a Q version of that pericope, as opposed to the supposedly simpler accont that Luke (or Matthew) just copied Matthew's (or Luke's) edits, is to me, no objection at all, first of all these are EXTREMELY rare, and almost always minor, and second of all, why on earth would we expect to documents, or a document and a tradition, which were discussing the same guy, and the same period of that guys' life, NOT to have overlapping material? Of course we would.
"More info about ancient literacy. Btw, I agree that it should be defined precisely:
https://denverseminary.edu/article/reading-and-writing-in-the-time-of-jesus/"
Absolutely, which is why claims about literacy must be defined and qualified before any inference is made from them.
There's a quote by Noam Chomsky where he critiques the idea that humans have taught some apes some kind of primitive form of language. He says that a person can teach a dog to jump and say that he's taught his dog a primitive form of flight, well, sure, if you look from far away and squint and ignore what we know about the actual mechanics of flight.
That's how i feel about MacDonald's theory, yeah, you can see Homeric Mimesis if you look from far away, squint real hard, and ignore literary practice. (I'm being a bit harsh here, but you get my point).
"Thiede’s claims that Qumran fragments represent very early copies of Mark and that the Magdalen College, Oxford, papyrus of Matthew should be dated to around A.D. 50 rather than to around 200." ????
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5
Built on quicksand.
https://ms.augsburgfortress.org/downloads/9781451473032Chapter1excerpt.pdf
Duncan, https://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/blog/the-magdalen-papyrus-p64-possibly-the-earliest-known-fragments-of-the-new-testament-or-of-a-book/
The link I posted from Denver Seminary reviews a book written by A. Millard. He says many good things about the book, but provides critiques too.
Duncan, I was a little confused with your apparent question since the book review was just making note that Millard refutes Thiede's claim. Clarify if you wish. Thanks.
I don't think this article has been cited yet: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbcd1wt.8?seq=4
Makes some trenchant criticisms of MacDonald's work.
My focus is still on this one account
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q_gcDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=homer+odyssey+pigs+mimesis&source=bl&ots=-OhOTuGAvw&sig=ACfU3U2qGS_ntYq7AiZsOY-dpN5TZpWAYw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjToty2rIWCAxWshv0HHbMzCIY4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=homer%20odyssey%20pigs%20mimesis&f=false
From the second century BCE Rome had its tales of austerity so I am not much swayed by that.
To me, the last article makes some telling criticism, including how a man like Mark (or someone like him) could have imitated Homer so grandly. The average school chap or lass cannot easily do what Homer did, especially when you read him in Greek. Even the art of storytelling is done in Homer such that it is not handily emulated. Furthermore, I think some of MacDonald's parallels are farfetched, to say the least.
Well, I have posted his parallel to the demoniac, I also sent you the Buddhist version. I have also sent videos where other scholars say they are identical account structures just with different names. So Mark has done it. These tropes must have been really popular.
Duncan, this is the last thing I'm saying in this thread, and unless Roman has something to add, I will close it within 24 hours. It was originally about the ANF, but I let this other discussion transpire until now.
I have problems with MacDonald's so-called parallel account of the demoniac: if you read it line for line, they are not exactly parallel.
I will consider the Buddhist version, but please don't tell me that Mark copied the Buddhists. Sorry, but I'll pass on that suggestion.
As you often say, I will have to see for myself just how they're identical account structures, but you know that other scholars disagree with your scholars :-)
Such is the life of academia.
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9780567672896&tocid=b-9780567672896-chapter9
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9780567672896&tocid=b-9780567672896-chapter9
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/688994
The Buddhists imitated the Greeks, but you already know this.
https://www.atticinscriptions.com/papers/aiuk-42
Post a Comment