tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post116628467079485076..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Jesus Mythers Can't Cut It By Their Own CriteriaJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166658518280019582006-12-20T15:48:00.000-08:002006-12-20T15:48:00.000-08:00my answer to this comment is in the blog itself.my answer to this comment is in the blog itself.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166528418520848432006-12-19T03:40:00.000-08:002006-12-19T03:40:00.000-08:00Joe,This is the kind of thing I meant when I said ...Joe,<BR/><BR/>This is the kind of thing I meant when I said you should take another look at this claim and stop simply repeating it. First, as I said earlier, Crossan says “the 50’s” not “by 50.” Koester describes Crossan’s position as dating the Cross Gospel to “the middle of the 1st century CE.” You interpret this “middle” to mean by 50 precisely, but “middle” means a range of possible dates in the middle, not the exact middle. Second, Koester is describing Crossan’s position, not his own. You say Koester never says otherwise. Even if this were the case, it would not mean that he endorses Crossan’s position or that he actually says he dates the Passion Narrative source to 50. But in fact, Koester disagrees with Crossan, and on a lot more than the epiphany stories. After describing Crossan’s theory in the paragraph on pp. 218-219, Koester criticizes it, saying, “There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis.” The second of these major criticisms has to do with Crossan’s early dating of a “major literary composition,” by which Koester means Crossan’s Cross Gospel.<BR/><BR/>You also jump ahead to p. 131 to cite two sentences about the PN source, where Koester is no longer discussing Crossan’s position. Yes, Koester believes that all the gospels depend on one PN source and that it ends with the empty tomb story. However, he does not say that this PN source was written by 50. You pull that from the earlier paragraph describing Crossan’ theory on pp. 218-219, though, as I’ve said you misinterpret “middle of the 1st century” to mean specifically the year 50. Crossan’s study is not one of the studies Koester is referring to on p. 131. Crossan’s hypothetical source, the Cross Gospel, did not contain the empty tomb story. Crossan thinks that story was composed later by the author of Mark.<BR/><BR/>So you are ignoring what Crossan actually says about when he dates his Cross Gospel, you are forcing an overly specific interpretation on Koester’s description of Crossan’s “middle of the 1st century”, and you mistakenly take Koester to be agreeing with Crossan on all but the epiphany stories.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>LOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166496663075598172006-12-18T18:51:00.000-08:002006-12-18T18:51:00.000-08:00yes Koster does say that. he says it exactly.Koste...yes Koster does say that. he says it exactly.<BR/><BR/>Koster expresses agreement with Crosson. Then he says:<BR/><BR/>(Koester, p. 220)<BR/><BR/>"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."<BR/><BR/>that is the same "basic acont" that Crosson puts at AD 50 Koster never says otherwise. What he differs on is the epiphanies after the resurrection, that's another matter.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166401931254135822006-12-17T16:32:00.000-08:002006-12-17T16:32:00.000-08:00Joe,First off, Koester does not say that the Passi...Joe,<BR/><BR/>First off, Koester does not say that the Passion Narrative source he hypothesizes was written by 50 CE. He does say that Crossan dates his hypothetical Cross Gospel to “the middle of the 1st century CE” (ACG 218). You take this to mean by 50 CE, but the words are not so specific and allow a range of dates. Crossan, in fact, says the Cross Gospel was composed “by the 50’s” (Historical Jesus, 429). Secondly, Koester is not endorsing Crossan’s hypothetical document or his dating of it—he is skeptical of “major literary compositions of a very early date” and suggests that “the earliest written materials were relatively small compositions of special materials” (219). Koester does believe that the Gospels of Mark, John and Peter were all dependent on an earlier Passion Narrative, but he doesn’t assign it an exact date. He puts the composition of Mark (which he thinks existed in many versions) “shortly after 70 CE” (290). This would allow a date for the PN source a decade or two later than 50 CE.<BR/><BR/>LOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166398682975712162006-12-17T15:38:00.000-08:002006-12-17T15:38:00.000-08:00(2) I said the pure mythers are kind of rare. most...(2) I said the pure mythers are kind of rare. most skeptics begin the argument saying he didn't exist, but when persured (push comes to shove--that's what tha tmeans) they will admit he existed but we don't know much about him.<BR/> <BR/>Okay you meant to say pressured, now I get it. Since you have dyslexia and a distinct dislike for any kind of spellcheck you have to understand that we have to interpret what you are trying to say at times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166396974413794432006-12-17T15:09:00.000-08:002006-12-17T15:09:00.000-08:00Joe,You keep repeating this bit:"Well, we can show...Joe,<BR/><BR/><B><I>You keep repeating this bit:<BR/><BR/>"Well, we can show that the basic sotry that makes up the Pre Markan redaction was used by all four Gospels, and that it was circulating as early as AD 50, that's just 18 years after the original events."<BR/><BR/>You rely on a single book by a single scholar (Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels) to establish the existence of a hypothetical document. The two problems here are, first, that Koester's views are of course contestable, and are contested by a number of scholars,</B></I><BR/><BR/><BR/>>>well let's see you nam a few? Of course all views are contestable. That's where the fun of scholarship comes in, you get to argue about it. But there are a number of major schoalrs who agree with Koseter, including Crosson. i had a list too but its' somewhere on Doxa. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>and second, that you inject a large amount of your own interpretation into what Koester (and Petersen) actually say in the book.</B></I><BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>that is a matter of opinion. But basically all readers do. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>You really need to take another look at this claim and stop simply repeating it.<BR/><BR/>Reagards,<BR/><BR/>LO</B></I><BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>that's a pretty arrogant comment. how dare you think that! I've read that book over and over again several times, I've looked his calims from several pionts of view and researched a good deal of what he says.I'vd studied it compeltely and if you weren't too lazy to actaully look up a scholar who disagrees and quote him I could show you where he's wrong.<BR/><BR/>12:42 PMJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166388120161236602006-12-17T12:42:00.000-08:002006-12-17T12:42:00.000-08:00Joe,You keep repeating this bit:"Well, we can show...Joe,<BR/><BR/>You keep repeating this bit:<BR/><BR/>"Well, we can show that the basic sotry that makes up the Pre Markan redaction was used by all four Gospels, and that it was circulating as early as AD 50, that's just 18 years after the original events."<BR/><BR/>You rely on a single book by a single scholar (Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels) to establish the existence of a hypothetical document. The two problems here are, first, that Koester's views are of course contestable, and are contested by a number of scholars, and second, that you inject a large amount of your own interpretation into what Koester (and Petersen) actually say in the book. You really need to take another look at this claim and stop simply repeating it.<BR/><BR/>Reagards,<BR/><BR/>LOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166394977631449072006-12-17T14:36:00.000-08:002006-12-17T14:36:00.000-08:00Anonymous said... "I think you are mixing up the a...Anonymous said... <BR/>"I think you are mixing up the arguments being made to make your own position seem stronger. There are at least two arguments being made here, one is the one you seem to have latched on is also the least common, that is that Jesus never existed and it was all made up."<BR/><BR/>>>>I said that. why is skeptics don't read well? You read what I said again you will see the following points:<BR/><BR/>(1) 2 kinds, pure mythers who think he didnt' exist at all, and wanna be mythers who will admit he existed but we don't know much abotu him.<BR/><BR/>(2) I said the pure mythers are kind of rare. most skeptics begin the argument saying he didn't exist, but when persured (push comes to shove--that's what tha tmeans) they will admit he existed but we don't know much about him.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> "The other argument is that Jesus did exist but much of what has been attributed to him has been gleaned from other sources. Considering how early christianity was competing with a number of other smallish cults at the time for worshippers it is entirely understandable that it might have done so."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I have disproven most of the alledged semilarities just by using real mythology books rather than myther books. But I quote a source saying Mithrism did not complete with Christaintiy.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Mithrism was not Christianity's Major Rival<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Mithraism <BR/>The Ecole Initiative:<BR/><BR/>http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles/mithraism.html<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Mithraism had a wide following from the middle of the second century to the late fourth century CE, but the common belief that Mithraism was the prime competitor of Christianity, promulgated by Ernst Renan (Renan 1882 579), is blatantly false. Mithraism was at a serious disadvantage right from the start because it allowed only male initiates. What is more, Mithraism was, as mentioned above, only one of several cults imported from the eastern empire that enjoyed a large membership in Rome and elsewhere. The major competitor to Christianity was thus not Mithraism but the combined group of imported cults and official Roman cults subsumed under the rubric "paganism." Finally, part of Renan's claim rested on an equally common, but almost equally mistaken, belief that Mithraism was officially accepted because it had Roman emperors among its adherents (Nero, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs are most commonly cited). Close examination of the evidence for the participation of emperors reveals that some comes from literary sources of dubious quality and that the rest is rather circumstantial. The cult of Magna Mater, the first imported cult to arrive in Rome (204 BCE) was the only one ever officially recognized as a Roman cult. The others, including Mithraism, were never officially accepted, and some, particularly the Egyptian cult of Isis, were periodically outlawed and their adherents persecuted. <BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> "The adoption of the date of christmas, even though from a later period shows this has happened."<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>yes, in a latter period. that makes a huge difference since the Jesus story was already set in stone.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166389442681183382006-12-17T13:04:00.000-08:002006-12-17T13:04:00.000-08:00I think you are mixing up the arguments being made...I think you are mixing up the arguments being made to make your own position seem stronger. There are at least two arguments being made here, one is the one you seem to have latched on is also the least common, that is that Jesus never existed and it was all made up. The other argument is that Jesus did exist but much of what has been attributed to him has been gleaned from other sources. Considering how early christianity was competing with a number of other smallish cults at the time for worshippers it is entirely understandable that it might have done so. The adoption of the date of christmas, even though from a later period shows this has happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1166327275635452702006-12-16T19:47:00.000-08:002006-12-16T19:47:00.000-08:00Yes noted. I thought of that after I already publi...Yes noted. I thought of that after I already published. I will go back and correct.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com