Robert said
Steefen said
Robert said
None of your historical reasoning above changes what Tacitus actually wrote. The text is very clear and without qualification. Would you like me to parse the Latin for you?
People advanced in their field use critical thinking skills, context, and more than one source, so, your failure to be persuasive is not a translation issue.
Sorry, Steefen, but you are not understanding the point here. I am only speaking about what the text of Tacitus actually says. Whether Tacitus relied on a single source or multiple sources, poor sources or also had additional, better sources available to him, is completely irrelevant to my point. Regardless of those and other considerations, whether you agree with Tacitus or not, you should not misrepresent what the text of Tacitus actually says.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
There is no misrepresentation on my part.
You say there is.
I say you misrepresent what the text of Tacitus actually says.
See: we agree to disagree.
Besides, there are two options: 1) the text is faulty and 2) the text is not faulty.
Another set of options:
1)
Jesus did not exist, but
there was an evil, mischievous superstition in Judea during the reign of Pontius Pilate that later broke out in Rome
2)
Jesus existed, and
there was no evil, mischievous superstition in Judea during the reign of Pontius Pilate that later broke out in Rome
3) Jesus existed, and he became a character of legend/myth, hence
there was an evil mischievous superstition in Judea during the reign of Pontius Pilate that later broke out in Rome
* * * About Options 1) and 3) * * *
I
Tacitus
Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate
and that checked messianic superstition for the moment.
FALSE: Jesus did not exist.
II
Tacitus
Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate
and that checked messianic superstition for the moment.
TRUE but FALSE: Jesus did not exist but there was a superstition that John the Baptist baptized someone holy who would be the Messiah.
When Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer (not Jesus Christ), the superstition that John the Baptist baptized someone holy who would be the Messiah
was checked for the moment.
III
Tacitus
Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate
and that checked messianic superstition for the moment.
TRUE but FALSE: Jesus did exist but he was blown up to legenday/mythological/superstitious proportions.
When Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer (not Jesus Christ), the superstition was checked for the moment.
Additional Information: the superstition could be an elaboration on the Jesselsohn Stone/Gabriel’s revelation (a sign is seen after three days)
that grew from the tax revolts to which Gabriel’s Revelation relates over a period time to the slaying/crucifixion of the Samaritan Redeemer.
II
Tacitus
Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate
and that checked messianic superstition for the moment.
TRUE but FALSE: Jesus did not exist but there was a superstition that John the Baptist baptized someone holy who would be the Messiah.
When Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer (not Jesus Christ), the superstition that John the Baptist baptized someone holy who would be the Messiah
was checked for the moment.
III
Tacitus
Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate
and that checked messianic superstition for the moment.
TRUE but FALSE: Jesus did exist but he was blown up to legenday/mythological/superstitious proportions.
When Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer (not Jesus Christ), the superstition was checked for the moment.
Additional Information: the superstition could be an elaboration on the Jesselsohn Stone/Gabriel’s revelation (a sign is seen after three days)
that grew from the tax revolts to which Gabriel’s Revelation relates over a period time to the slaying/crucifixion of the Samaritan Redeemer.
= = =
Response:
When Agrippa II was dealing with the rebel Jesus of Galilee who fought General Vespasian and General Titus, not once did he appeal to
a) the biblical Jesus of Galilee who did not exist but was a superstition
b) the biblical Jesus of Galilee who did exist but was made a legend, mythologized, and turned into a superstition.
Tacitus is another historian who is not infallible.
The Tacitus text cannot stand on face value, it is faulty. Period.
Robert said
Steefen said
… Tacitus is another historian who is not infallible.
The Tacitus text cannot stand on face value, it is faulty. Period.
No one is infallible and, again, my point is merely that the actual text of Tacitus should be read correctly, not misrepresenting what it actually says, regardless of whether or not it is believed or otherwise judged to be faulty in any way.
The conversation has moved beyond that point. When it was appropriate for you to make that point, you did, and you were heard.
Thank you.
Bart Ehrman
2 Peter 3:16 presupposes a collection of Paul’s letters long before Marcion.
Steefen
Whoever wrote 2 Peter is aware of the letters of Paul. Peter is thought to have been martyred AD 68.
2 Peter dates between 65-68 and 100-150.
100 – Scheikle
100-110 – Knoch, Kelly
100-125 James, Vogtle, Paulsen
100-140 Callan
130 (E. Brown, Sidebottom)
150 (Stephen L. Harris); “Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
QUESTION 1: Where do you date 2 Peter?
Bart Ehrman
120 CE or so.
Steefen
So, according to 2 Peter, third chapter, verse 16, there was a collection of Paul’s letters in or around the year 120 C.E., before Marcion’s New Testament, Apostolikon.
= = =
QUESTION 2: In your book, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Essay 13, “The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for Textual Criticism, p. 247 and Essay 8, “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox,” p. 142, do you acknowledge and address second century anti-Marcionite redaction of scripture?
Markus Vinzent (Kings College) has put forth that Marcion brought forward teachings of Paul that were somewhat undesirable.
Since Acts was not included in Marcion’s collection but “Luke” presented different biographical information of Paul than is found in Paul’s letters, post-Marcion redactors of the New Testament were going for something different.
Bart Ehrman
I do not have the book in front of me. Maybe you do since you cite pages.
Steefen
The page numbers came from the table of contents, using Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature. (I was wondering if the book belonged on my Wish List.)
Were there second century anti-Marcionite redactions of scripture?
You are known for deciphering and collecting changes to scripture. Anti-Marionite redactions would seem to be a major category of editorial changes.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Challenging Traditional Views of Marcion
Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion, Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion’s era. It didn’t. Marcion’s critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet.
Ancient critics thought Marcion cut out texts he didn’t like from an already existing canon, but this is not true.
— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Challenging Traditional Views of Marcion
Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion, Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion’s era. It didn’t. Marcion’s critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet.
Ancient critics thought Marcion cut out texts he didn’t like from an already existing canon, but this is not true.
— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The list of 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts compiled by the late Larry Hurtado consists of about 300 items. They are divided into: 1/3 NT texts, 1/3 Apocrypha texts, 1/6 Christian LXX texts and 1/6 Jewish LXX texts. This means that the new literature completely dominated and that the apocrypha were as important as the NT texts. Especially the Shepherd Hermas pointing to the Roman Church. It is as popular as the Gospel of Matthew, despite the fact that in the text, about the volume of the entire Pauline Corpus, the word Jesus is mentioned once.
What conclusions
1. There are no 1st century manuscripts. All this writing began at the turn of the 1st / 2nd century. Why not earlier? Because it didn’t pay off. Because someone has finally found a target market.
2. The entire market is focused on new customers – pagan customers. The dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX
3. The canon was not important. All literature worked for the missionary success of Christianity.
4. Cannibalization and rivalry were the problem. The number of literary items indicates that a large proportion of players preferred to prey on converts rather than lead a mission among the pagans.
Paul’s letters were dated by all readers from the 2nd century to the 21st century on the basis of their content. They have always been ancient for all readers. Because they were supposed to be like that. And that’s why they have disappeared and have been miraculously found. A real resurrection.
There is no slow growth when you find a new, absorbent content market. There is madness. Luke wrote Acts between 100-150, added genealogy and preface to the gospel after 175. And is yet to be the author of the gospel around AD 85. I don’t even want to comment on that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Now what did Marcion do. Out of this mass of ideas and literary works, he chose those he deemed necessary and began mass producing missionaries that were interchangeable as one-size cribs. In order to win, he introduced the simplest rule that always captivates ambitious people. “What you get, what you build yourself, and those you hire will work for you, just like you work for us.” This is very good for a start, problems come later. Eternal Amway Rules.
To understand the development of early Christian literature, it is necessary to understand the purposes it served. Market competition and power struggle are the most important layers of religious activity. It is the same in politics. Wiktor Orban was the first anti-communist politician to demand the removal of Soviet troops from Hungary. Poles, Lithuanians and Czechs cringed in fear, as he said, terrified that he was putting the entire process of change in Central Europe at risk. Today it is said to be pro-Russian, which is obviously ridiculous. Orban has always worked and works for Orban.
Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the right-wing leader currently ruling Poland, was the author of the agreement with the communists at the Round Table. Today he is a critic of this agreement. At the beginning of his career, he stated that “It does not matter if Poland is red or black. What matters is whose Poland is”. His right-wing PiS party introduced the largest social program unlike his liberal and post-communist predecessors.
Bible research leads to a situation where, during the RMP vs BDE debate, one claims that the Letters were not written by Paul and the other laughs at it. Clearly they both adopt different paradigms that are not proven. Both paradigms are simply a bookmaker, because biblical studies do not provide conclusive criteria. I am indifferent to which paradigm is true. I am just looking for these criteria.
I should probably have said “less than perfect understandings” (plural) since there are often competing lines of thought depending on the complexity of the issue in question. For many questions, the discussions are merely intellectual exercises, since none of us are likely to have to re-enact the Trojan wars, for example. But it becomes relevant when consequences of such discussions are still relevant, as in various religious traditions. That reality makes the significance more important, although it does nothing to address the underlying problems.
JAS said
At some point, there is no absolute, scientific, mathematical proof for anything that is not scientific and mathematical. The great balancing trick of the humanities is dealing with less than perfect certainty.
At last. JAS, I’m glad you wrote this. Where is the sociological expertise used, where is the philosophy of business, philosophy of management and organization, where is the expertise of cross-cultural anthropology? Where are the experiences and benchmarks of the Catholic Church in managing organizational crisis. Where are the reconstructions of theologians, early Christian leaders based on this type of expertise. Which biblical scholar uses specialists in the areas I have mentioned. Where are the issues of development and content management? How to solve a synoptic problem that is not just a biblical problem? The great balancing trick of the humanities? Unfortunately, I don’t see anything like that.
Jarek said
JAS said
At some point, there is no absolute, scientific, mathematical proof for anything that is not scientific and mathematical. The great balancing trick of the humanities is dealing with less than perfect certainty.
At last. JAS, I’m glad you wrote this. Where is the sociological expertise used, where is the philosophy of business, philosophy of management and organization, where is the expertise of cross-cultural anthropology? Where are the experiences and benchmarks of the Catholic Church in managing organizational crisis. Where are the reconstructions of theologians, early Christian leaders based on this type of expertise. Which biblical scholar uses specialists in the areas I have mentioned. Where are the issues of development and content management? How to solve a synoptic problem that is not just a biblical problem? The great balancing trick of the humanities? Unfortunately, I don’t see anything like that.
None of these are sciences either, and they are full of their own strident disagreements. Somehow left out of your list are potentially more relevant things like historical analysis, language and translation skills, and perhaps lots of other areas that might be included. What synoptic problem do you wish to solve? Is it something that really can be “solved” at all? How will you know when you have that “solution”?
Robert said
JAS said
At some point, there is no absolute, scientific, mathematical proof for anything that is not scientific and mathematical. The great balancing trick of the humanities is dealing with less than perfect certainty.
This is perhaps the biggest difficulty when ‘lay people’ approach scholarly topics, most especially in the area of religion. People expect or long for or assume that there are certitudes, when there just aren’t. Some traditional thinkers actually use the term “metaphysical certitude,” but the metaphysical realm is really the most intangible, mysterious, an uncertain of all. New Testament studies is not metaphysics but it touches this realm for so many people. All we have is collective scholarly debate for the past few centuries, during which time it becomes apparent which positions can be very well defended and which are barely defensible (ie, it’s perhaps possible, cannot be disproven, but hardly anyone in their right mind considers it a realistic probability). And a million questions in between those two extremes.
If you want to make a decision related to the launch of a new milk packaging, you expect the recommendation of a multidisciplenary team consisting of a lawyer, marketing specialist, design specialist, head of the technical department, sales manager, opinions of the logistics department, opinions of the financial department, sanitary and safety certificates. Bible scholars try to solve much more complicated and complex problems relying solely on themselves. I am not interested in the result, but in finding a better method. I do not know if there are certainties. I can see that the process of searching for them is questionable.
JAS said
Jarek said
JAS said
At some point, there is no absolute, scientific, mathematical proof for anything that is not scientific and mathematical. The great balancing trick of the humanities is dealing with less than perfect certainty.
At last. JAS, I’m glad you wrote this. Where is the sociological expertise used, where is the philosophy of business, philosophy of management and organization, where is the expertise of cross-cultural anthropology? Where are the experiences and benchmarks of the Catholic Church in managing organizational crisis. Where are the reconstructions of theologians, early Christian leaders based on this type of expertise. Which biblical scholar uses specialists in the areas I have mentioned. Where are the issues of development and content management? How to solve a synoptic problem that is not just a biblical problem? The great balancing trick of the humanities? Unfortunately, I don’t see anything like that.
None of these are sciences either, and they are full of their own strident disagreements. Somehow left out of your list are potentially more relevant things like historical analysis, language and translation skills, and perhaps lots of other areas that might be included. What synoptic problem do you wish to solve? Is it something that really can be “solved” at all? How will you know when you have that “solution”?
Nobody’s perfect. You have to use what is. I omitted the fields you mentioned, because these are just being used. And they do not belong to the exact sciences, for example, assessing the results of manuscript dating. I have no complaints about their imperfections. They are what they are. What is used is not enough to go further. Hope to talk about the next note on the Synoptic Problem.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)