christian@topaz.UUCP (04/15/87)
I reply to arguments by Larry, and include other miscellaneous comments. In response to mc1!larry@elroy.uucp, article <10783@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>: >[Larry claims that the writings of Matthew, John, James, and Peter that > we possess are eyewitness accounts.] But this--like so much about the historicity of the NT--is disputed by the scholars. I refer you to the various introductions in the New Jeru- salem Bible and also the Encyclopedia Brittanica for some easy to read summaries. Long hours in a good library will give you much more. Remember that a text gained authority based on its claimed author, and backwards attributions were not unknown at the time, nor considered un- ethical. Which means that seeing the name "John" attached is just the beginning step in identifying the author, not the final. And there are other difficulties. Matthew could quite possibly be an "eyewitness" account--but there is such a high density of OT prophecy fulfillment that my private alarm bells concerning authenticity of just what was eyewitnessed as to what might be rhetorical flourishes and as to what might be later interpolations, etc, go ringing wildly. Thus, who saw the rending of the Holy of Holies? The stolen-body-rumor payoff? All those wandering corpses? In other words, I find that some of these "eyewitnesses" overdid it. We've seen how Steven Rice explained various numeric disagreements as copyist errors. Could that have happened at a very early manuscript, concerning, say, the 500 risen Christ witnesses? You can't tell from the texts today. >[Larry claims that an 11/12 martyrship ratio among the apostles is > pretty impressive.] Unfortunately, this very fact is subject to dispute. Some martyrdoms are rather likely to be true: Acts mentions the beheading of James, John's brother; Clement of Rome, circa 95 AD, alludes cryptically at one point to the unhappy fate of Peter and Paul; Josephus and Hege- sippus both mention the death of James, Jesus' "brother"--but the one says it was a stoning, the other a defenestration. Hmmm. But most of the others come, as far as is known, from later tradition. The first mention of John's martyrdom is, I believe, Origen, early 3rd century. Is it fact, or legend? Legends DO grow over the years--that is why there was so much apocrypha. Do you believe that John was put in a vat of boiling oil and survived? Some accounts say so, some say otherwise. Where do you draw the line? Concerning St Peter's cross: it was not mentioned in the earliest ac- counts. (Even more amazing is St Andrew's cross--a medieval invention.) So try looking up the known versus legendary facts about the apostles. But in the end, an 11/12 martyrdom ratio would not really impress me, since we do not know *what* they were actually martyred *for*. Was it for a specific eyewitness belief in a risen Christ? Or was it on more general principles, like not engaging in emperor worship on demand? Notice how easy it would be for a growing body of legends to not take extra care to distinguish the two. But when trying to reconstruct history *now*, we must take all such possibilities into account before drawing powerful conclusions. >[Larry recommends several books, like Josh McDowell's] I find that these usually make certain bad, if sometimes subtle, flaws in their pro-belief-argumentation (as opposed to their strawman-correc- tions, which don't interest me). Typical is the "let's line up the possible explanations in order, and explain why each one is rather im- probable, leaving us with the last--Resurrection Ho!" argument. That is just a debater's sleight-of-hand stunt, since the final conclusion depends on lining up the "improbabilities" with the desired one last. I'll recommend you read the Gospel of Thomas, which may have been writ- ten contemporaneously with the synoptics. There's no mention of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. How come? Is the text incomplete? Or is there a deeper reason he's known as doubt- ing Thomas? Thus, is John 20:24-30 somebody's invention to show Thomas- ites how incorrect based their beliefs were, in the "my gospel is better than your gospel" line of thought. Make no mistake, there were serious conflicts in the early Christian church. And I don't just mean Peter vs Paul. Consider Galatians 1:6-9, where Paul warns the Galatians to reject anyone else's gospel. Just WHOSE did he have in mind? And why were they SO BAD in the first place? The historical record gives too many questions and not enough answers. [Aside, mostly to the moderator: what is this sort of bickering doing here anyway? With your recent comment that Paul Dubuc's article on skepticism had implicit offensitivities--I personally did not see any --I'm surprised that you let some of Larry's bald assertions about what *IS* historical fact go by. THAT stuff gets under my dander.] [My criteria are purely formal, not substantial. I don't see any way that I can start removing articles that I consider to be false, though I admit that sometimes I would like to. --clh] -- Vasu finds lots of contradictions, and promises to give us more. I'm an atheist, and have been since I can remember thinking about the question, but I must say, these don't really impress me. Divine Intentions, what- ever they are or even mean, are not bound by whatever you and I try to guess. I do not see any a priori reasons to expect an internally consis- tent God-given Bible in the first place. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that "contradictions" are there for Good Reasons. (This surprise is relative to the surprise I would find upon learning that God is really out there in the first place. You know what I mean....) Perhaps Stephen Brams' game-theoretic modeling of var- ious classical theological puzzles could be extended here. (See his book _Superior Beings_, published by Springer-Verlag. It's very weird stuff.) -- Steven Den Beste tells a depressing story about some Christians not even knowing what the word "atheist" means. Well well well, if that isn't the perfect lead-in to a plug for one of my favorite books of all time: Raymond Queneau _We always treat women too well_. On the surface it's a rather bizarre sadistic porn thriller, but looking deeper down it is actually a sophisticated and highly literary parody of said genre. The book has never caught on in any group's reading circles. (Queneau is in general a highly regarded 20th century French literary figure. This book, however, went down like a dud. He initially published it under the pseudonym "Sally Mara" to boot.) Now what does this have to do with Christianity? The story takes place during the Easter Rebellion of 1916, and centers around six naive Cath- olics who took over a post office, overlooking the fact that one Gertie Girdle is in the ladies' room at the time. When they eventually find her, they don't quite know what to do with her. This makes for some very interesting dynamics, which sometimes get into religion. Steven's story reminded me of one such exchange that occurred during her interrogation: [rot13ed due to some vulgar language. Also, possibly offensive to those of the Catholic and/or Irish persuasions. Probably offensive to those who are offended by strong religion jokes in general.] ... `Na ntabfgvp,' B'Ebhexr ercrngrq. ... `Naq jung qbrf vg zrna?' nfxrq Pnyyvana. `Gung fur qbrfa'g oryvrir va nalguvat,' fnvq B'Ebhexr. `Abg rira va Tbq?' `Abg rira va Tbq,' fnvq B'Ebhexr. Gurer jnf n fvyrapr, naq gurl nyy pbafvqrerq ure va greebe naq pbafgreangvba. `Gung vfa'g dhvgr npphengr,' fnvq Tregvr, va n fbsg, fjrrg ibvpr, `naq V guvax lbh ner fvzcyvslvat zl gubhtug.' `Gur ovgpu,' zhezherq Pnsserl. `V qb abg qral gur cbffvovyvgl bs gur rkvfgrapr bs n Fhcerzr Orvat.' `Shpx,' zhezherq Pnsserl. `Abj jr'er sbe vg.' ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the Devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell ... -Saint Augustine