A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

[psstein]

Just so we get a decent grasp on "when are things dated," 90% of critical scholarship dates the Pastorals to the 80s or 90s. Some scholars have tried to argue that they were a reaction to Marcionism, which would place them in the mid 2nd century. However, there are quite a few issues with such a late date, one of them being that Marcion doesn't include quite a few things we know were written by the time of Marcion.

[One Bad Pig]

Just so we get a decent grasp on "when are things dated," 90% of critical scholarship dates the Pastorals to the 80s or 90s. Some scholars have tried to argue that they were a reaction to Marcionism, which would place them in the mid 2nd century. However, there are quite a few issues with such a late date, one of them being that Marcion doesn't include quite a few things we know were written by the time of Marcion.

Thank you.

[One Bad Pig]

that's late3 second I said they start showing up early mid second.

No, you didn't. At most, you've said that certain topics addressed in the Pastorals showing up in the early or mid-second century. However, there's not a whole lot of evidence of undisputed references even to the gospels into the mid-second century, and very few people would date them that late.

If Paul wrote 1 Tim it would have been around 60-64.

Quite likely, yes.

that's pretty much when most scholars date it to

This is a hopelessly vague response to the text you're quoting.

I am not making assertions' I'm paraphrasing scholar I read in seminary.

Is it a scholar you read in seminary or an atheist professor you heard somewhere else? You're not being consistent.

you kept coming back on it.

This doesn't make any sense.

I understand that you're dyslexic, so don't mind overlooking spelling errors. I do expect an attempt at coherent discussion, however.

[seanD]

I'd have to look at Timothy in the original Greek, which I really don't have time to do right now. To quote from Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 663:



We know Paul used a secretary to write some of his letters, largely because the secretary is identified. It seems as though whomever wrote Titus also wrote 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy is a little bit more abstruse. There's an article called "The Pastorals in Light of Statistical Linguistics," in New Testament Studies 6. If you can't get access to the article, send me a PM and I'll send it to you. I can get it within a few days.

How do I explain it? I don't really think it needs explaining. Pseudipigraphy was fairly common in the ancient world. People weren't really concerned with who actually wrote something, but rather whose authority was behind the work. If you're writing something in a Pauline style, you'd want to claim that Paul's authority was behind it.

We all know Pseudipigraphy was fairly common in the ancient world. I don't think that's news to anyone on this board.

My argument is dictation. One work we know for a fact Paul didn't use a secretary is Philemon (1:19), and the fact he felt the need to make this clear suggests that the practice wasn't unusual even for Paul. We might assume that most of the "undisputed" letters (i.e. Romans, 1 &2 Cor, Gal, Philipp, Philemon) were written by his hand, but everything else from that point is up in the air. Like I said, if Paul was imprisoned at the time the Timothy letters were conceived, and there's every reason to believe this was so, then that's even more of a reason to believe they were merely dictated by him. But you agree that if Paul didn't in fact write it with his own hand, the vocabulary argument is out the window?

Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

This is just one among many examples of problems in the Pastorals. How do you explain this type of content if this was not written not just under Paul's consent but under is direct dictation?

Just so we get a decent grasp on "when are things dated," 90% of critical scholarship dates the Pastorals to the 80s or 90s. Some scholars have tried to argue that they were a reaction to Marcionism, which would place them in the mid 2nd century. However, there are quite a few issues with such a late date, one of them being that Marcion doesn't include quite a few things we know were written by the time of Marcion.

Even if there is a consensus on the matter, you couldn't possibly claim an accurate number of 90% unless you've read every single scholarly work on the subject and then were somehow able to calculate this statistic, and I highly doubt you have. What you're doing is using a glorified version of populum ad argumentum and using 90%, which you pulled out of your butt, in order to spruce it up. You imagine that I'm supposed to go: "Oh my, 90% of scholarship? Maybe I need to reconsider my own argument." Just being honest here. Moreover, consensus to me is irrelevant in these discussions, regardless of which way the consensus goes. I like for the person who holds to a particular position to explain the arguments to me themselves in detail rather than just making a populum ad argumentum appeal because not only can a consensus not be definitively proven but the ability to understand and explain the arguments is more interesting of a discussion on a forum like this.

[One Bad Pig]

How do I explain it? I don't really think it needs explaining. Pseudipigraphy was fairly common in the ancient world. People weren't really concerned with who actually wrote something, but rather whose authority was behind the work. If you're writing something in a Pauline style, you'd want to claim that Paul's authority was behind it.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. There were many works which were written in someone else's name, but were rejected as fictional. The author of 3 Corinthians was rather excoriated for his attempt to pass it off as Pauline.

[metacrock]

No, you didn't. At most, you've said that certain topics addressed in the Pastorals showing up in the early or mid-second century. However, there's not a whole lot of evidence of undisputed references even to the gospels into the mid-second century, and very few people would date them that late.

yes I did say that go look. you have the burden of proof to give me a valid reason why we should think there were official church widows in Paul's day, you no document to prove it. none. we don't see them until second century.

Quite likely, yes.

agree on probably date of authorship if Paul was the author a(1 Tim)


I said :"that's pretty much when most scholars date it to"

you said:

This is a hopelessly vague response to the text you're quoting.

wrong it's extremely precise.

Is it a scholar you read in seminary or an atheist professor you heard somewhere else? You're not being consistent.

when you go to seminary and get your own advanced degree then can lecture me on how I'm too inept to know what I learned until them I am the one credentials and you are not.

This doesn't make any sense.

I understand that you're dyslexic, so don't mind overlooking spelling errors. I do expect an attempt at coherent discussion, however.

it means you keep repeating the same BS I've disproved

[psstein]

My argument is dictation. One work we know for a fact Paul didn't use a secretary is Philemon (1:19), and the fact he felt the need to make this clear suggests that the practice wasn't unusual even for Paul. We might assume that most of the "undisputed" letters (i.e. Romans, 1 &2 Cor, Gal, Philipp, Philemon) were written by his hand, but everything else from that point is up in the air. Like I said, if Paul was imprisoned at the time the Timothy letters were conceived, and there's every reason to believe this was so, then that's even more of a reason to believe they were merely dictated by him. But you agree that if Paul didn't in fact write it with his own hand, the vocabulary argument is out the window?

No, I don't. Even letters that Paul did not directly write have very strong Pauline vocabulary tells. Almost everybody (probably 95%+ of scholars, because there's always some crackpot out there) thinks Romans is authentic. Romans has strong signs of Pauline authorship, from vocabulary to grammatical structure. The same is true with 2 Corinthians, which seems as though it's at least two or three letters spliced together.

This is just one among many examples of problems in the Pastorals. How do you explain this type of content if this was not written not just under Paul's consent but under is direct dictation?

Troas doesn't neatly fit into any of Paul's travels. It's only mentioned in Acts, which suggests that these letters aren't written by Paul, but by someone familiar with Acts. Some scholars have suggested that Luke the evangelist actually wrote at least part of the Pastorals.

Even if there is a consensus on the matter, you couldn't possibly claim an accurate number of 90% unless you've read every single scholarly work on the subject and then were somehow able to calculate this statistic, and I highly doubt you have. What you're doing is using a glorified version of populum ad argumentum and using 90%, which you pulled out of your butt, in order to spruce it up. You imagine that I'm supposed to go: "Oh my, 90% of scholarship? Maybe I need to reconsider my own argument." Just being honest here. Moreover, consensus to me is irrelevant in these discussions, regardless of which way the consensus goes. I like for the person who holds to a particular position to explain the arguments to me themselves in detail rather than just making a populum ad argumentum appeal because not only can a consensus not be definitively proven but the ability to understand and explain the arguments is more interesting of a discussion on a forum like this.

The 90% is not my number. I'm quoting Raymond Brown's statistic in his Introduction to the New Testament, which did review a very large amount of the literature in the first place. Yes, critical scholars are occasionally wrong about things; I don't deny that. There are some mainstream positions in contemporary New Testament scholarship that I think are extremely problematic (e.g. the uncritical acceptance of Q or the idea that none of the gospels were written by their traditional authors).

[seanD]

No, I don't. Even letters that Paul did not directly write have very strong Pauline vocabulary tells. Almost everybody (probably 95%+ of scholars, because there's always some crackpot out there) thinks Romans is authentic. Romans has strong signs of Pauline authorship, from vocabulary to grammatical structure. The same is true with 2 Corinthians, which seems as though it's at least two or three letters spliced together.



Troas doesn't neatly fit into any of Paul's travels. It's only mentioned in Acts, which suggests that these letters aren't written by Paul, but by someone familiar with Acts. Some scholars have suggested that Luke the evangelist actually wrote at least part of the Pastorals.




The 90% is not my number. I'm quoting Raymond Brown's statistic in his Introduction to the New Testament, which did review a very large amount of the literature in the first place. Yes, critical scholars are occasionally wrong about things; I don't deny that. There are some mainstream positions in contemporary New Testament scholarship that I think are extremely problematic (e.g. the uncritical acceptance of Q or the idea that none of the gospels were written by their traditional authors).

Titus does raise a legitimate issue with his visit to Crete and Nicopolis, which isn't recorded in Acts. Troas, however, not mentioned in any of Paul's letters is an argument from silence, and is an even less convincing argument. I could argue that there is really not much in the Timothy letters that reflects anything from Acts, thus proves it has no relation to Acts as a source. Considering Luke was the only one with Paul at the time he dictated the second Timothy letter, it's only natural to assume Luke was the secretary. Thus, I'm not surprised Luke is the assumed author by some.

You still haven't answered the question...

Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

What is your explanation for this type of real-time content throughout all three letters if this was not written under Paul's direct dictation?

[One Bad Pig]

yes I did say that go look. you have the burden of proof to give me a valid reason why we should think there were official church widows in Paul's day, you no document to prove it. none. we don't see them until second century.

I'll repeat this slowly. This does not prove that official church widows did not exist until the second century.

I said :"that's pretty much when most scholars date it to"

you said: This is a hopelessly vague response to the text you're quoting.

wrong it's extremely precise.

In response to two different subjects dated at two different times? I can't read you mind. You need to be more specific.

when you go to seminary and get your own advanced degree then can lecture me on how I'm too inept to know what I learned until them I am the one credentials and you are not.

I don't have to go to seminary in order to be able to spot obvious inconsistencies in your recollections.

it means you keep repeating the same BS I've disproved

This is not a coherent response, merely an assertion meant to summarily dismiss what I'm saying. I'll leave it to the good readers of this thread to determine what has and hasn't been disproved.

[metacrock]

I'll repeat this slowly. This does not prove that official church widows did not exist until the second century.

you are totally wrong. We know from the major sources such as teaching of the twelve and I Clem, that church structure was evolving in late first and early second and it just began to firm up such a way as to include orders of women such as virgins and widows in second century, doesn't prove it but as a means of dating a text it effects the probability of dating it..

In response to two different subjects dated at two different times? I can't read you mind. You need to be more specific.

I don't know what you are talking about

I don't have to go to seminary in order to be able to spot obvious inconsistencies in your recollections.

you are denying the historical critical methods common to rained historians you think you re being critical you are not. you areusimng received opining.

This is not a coherent response, merely an assertion meant to summarily dismiss what I'm saying. I'll leave it to the good readers of this thread to determine what has and hasn't been disproved.

I said: it means you keep repeating the same BS I've disproved, anyone with a brain can see clearly what that means. it's concise amnd says exactly what it's meat to say.


I are reaping your original positing without extending your argument. you haven[t answered mine.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Rinestone:


Yes there is. There's good evidence of several sources prior to mark. Mat and Luke barrow rom Mark but that is not proof that they didn't also have other sources, The synoptic problem is proof of that. The Gospel of Peter is independent of Matt and Mark so that's another source. couit them

Mark
Q
PMPN and/ or GPete
L
John sources

at least four or five

My whole point, which you ignored, is that there's no clear independent attestation of the empty tomb. Matthew and Luke largely borrow the main part of the narrative from Mark. John was written so late that he most likely had heard the story and re-oralized that into his narrative (There is evidence that he was at least familiar with Luke). Apologists like to claim that there was an "early Passion Narrative" but the problem is no one has been able to successfully separate the Markan material from the pre-Markan material. Therefore, this just ends up being wishful thinking speculation in the end. There's no evidence which necessitates the empty tomb story being composed prior to the year 70 (Most scholars date Mark around 70) so we have no reason to believe the empty tomb story belonged to some "early source."

[metacrock]

My whole point, which you ignored, is that there's no clear independent attestation of the empty tomb. Matthew and Luke largely borrow the main part of the narrative from Mark. John was written so late that he most likely had heard the story and re-oralized that into his narrative (There is evidence that he was at least familiar with Luke). Apologists like to claim that there was an "early Passion Narrative" but the problem is no one has been able to successfully separate the Markan material from the pre-Markan material. Therefore, this just ends up being wishful thinking speculation in the end. There's no evidence which necessitates the empty tomb story being composed prior to the year 70 (Most scholars date Mark around 70) so we have no reason to believe the empty tomb story belonged to some "early source."

Yes there is. the four gospels and a peter barrow from a now non existing Gospel written before Mark dating back to mid century

here are two essays that document this work

Gospel behind the Gospel

part 2

[RhinestoneCowboy]

#1 -- thing is, we don't need multiple attestation of Jesus' burial.

So you admit that we do not have multiple attestation of Jesus' burial. Thanks for being honest. Independent attestation is not required but preferred when evaluating historical claims.

We can assume Jesus was buried because that's the way Jews buried their dead in first century Palestine, including condemned crucified criminals.

The Jews didn't crucify Jesus so they had no say in what happened to him. The Romans put a sign above Jesus that read "King of the Jews." It would make more sense to leave this person hanging on display for a while to serve as an example rather than just handing him over upon request. All we can "assume" is that we don't really know what happened to Jesus' body, but given the evidence, it's more likely he was left on the cross to rot and was picked apart by birds. Then later, whatever was left, was thrown into a mass grave.

Even if all we had was Paul's account that Jesus was buried and nothing more, or even no account that Jesus was buried, by historical default we know that Jesus was likely buried based on archeological evidence and extrabiblical evidence of how Jews handled the dead during that time (I go into a bit more detail in #4).

Notice how Paul does not say buried "in a tomb" though. He says "burial" which could imply a ground burial after several days of hanging on the cross! We don't know because he's not specific. It's dishonest to assume that Paul's burial automatically must harmonize with the later empty tomb tradition as he gives us no indication of this.

The fact we also do have written records (the gospels, both canon and apocryphal), attesting to his burial just adds further support of a burial we already expect of a first century Jew during that era, even if one considers those records purely fanciful about everything else. In other words, it becomes more of stretch to imagine Jesus, as a Jew, wasn't buried in spite of what was written about his burial, than it is to assume that a burial occurred because that was the typical protocol during that time and that the written works accurately reflect that fact.

You have written records that ultimately are traced back to one source - Mark and which contradict what we know of Roman crucifixion practice, Jewish law and how Josephus says Jewish criminals were buried. So actually no, it's not a stretch at all to question the Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial.

#3 - to the contrary, evidence holds that Pilate indeed would have cared about appeasing Jewish law. But to understand that, one needs to dig into the historical records much deeper in order to get an accurate historical puzzle to this whole thing.

Philo records not only that the kings and emperors of that time were committed to allowing Jewish laws and customs unimpeded, and that Pilate himself was committed to honoring Tiberius who was also intent on keeping the peace with the Jews, but an incident where Pilate was at first obstinate about shields he delivered to Herod and the angry reaction it had among the Jews to the point of revolt. Philo states that Pilate was in a state of conflict, not wanting to be seen as a man easily influenced by a mob but also not wanting this mob to take their grievances to Tiberius of whom Pilate greatly honored. As a result, Pilate took the matter to Tiberius in a form of a letter. Tiberius wrote back to Pilate a scathing letter condemning the act.

This occurred before the crucifixion of Jesus, so we can now imagine the historical context this happened and how the gospels accurately reflect this conflict. Pilate was already in hot water with Tiberius and was in yet another catch-22. If he crucified an innocent Jew during the Jewish festivities, he would have been on the spot. If he didn't crucify him, he would have been on the spot. Pilate chose to crucify him because he saw that this was the better choice among the crowd of Jews who were getting testy about his reluctance. And we can further understand why he washed his hands of the incident if word of this got to Tiberius. In fact, John 19:12 similarly reflects the situation described in Philo's work about the Jews threatening to take their grievances against Pilate to Tiberius (and I'm surprised skeptics haven't argued that John copied this from Philo), which adds more historical weight to the context.

(Embassy to Gaius 302).

Oh, and Luke 13:1 says:

John Dominic Crossan states:

#4 - This sort of ties in with #1. It is true that Jewish criminals were not buried in their family tombs, but they were still buried, as this was a necessity according to Jewish law.

But Jesus was killed by the Romans, not the Jews. So now the question becomes how likely is it that Pilate would allow the confessed "King of the Jews", a convicted seditionist, a proper burial? Jesus' claim would have been considered a political threat, which Rome would not have taken lightly. Considering all the evidence describing Pilate's ruthlessness and the Roman sources describing crucifixion it's still far from sure that they would have allowed him to be handed over upon request. Moreover, the evidence we have (See #3 in the arguments against the empty tomb in the next post below) regarding Jewish criminal procedure completely contradicts the honorable burial that Jesus receives in the gospels.

But the gospels very accurately reflect Jewish law about criminal burial at that time

Not really. Did you see all this?

Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations as attested by the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

A unique grave was not necessary for crucified people, since crucifixion was not an official Jewish penalty.

The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

According to these tractates, Jewish criminal burial was totally different than how it's portrayed in the Gospels. Does it really sound like Jesus would be given a brand new empty tomb where "no one had ever been laid?"

It is also true that most of the accounts of crucified victims in Greco-Roman literature were left on the cross indefinitely but these were direct enemies of the imperial state, either during times of war or just personal animosity the king or emperor had against the victims.

A person claiming to be "King of the Jews" would have been seen as a threat to imperial Rome so that fulfills your first criteria. As for your second criteria, out of the sources we have, they aren't so specific as to those exact details. However, they all basically agree that part of the punishment was to remain on the cross, be picked apart by scavengers, and be refused a proper burial.

We know Pilate had no personal animosity against Jesus or that there was any uprising that had occurred prior to Jesus' arrest. Josephus indicates that the typical procedure during peacetime was burial of crucified victims, and even during times of war, Josephus indicates Titus allowed him to request the removal of victims that were crucified during that time. Thus, there is no cut and dry argument here. We have written evidence that victims were left out indefinitely, but we also have physical evidence of burial allowance of crucifixion victims along with written evidence of the allowance of burial, thus it becomes more of a stretch to deny that the written accounts about Jesus' burial reflect that extrabiblical evidence.

However, Josephus completely contradicts the honorable burial Jesus receives in the gospels.

He comments on the end of a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

#2 - you need to be specific about the "problems" with burial. I don't do links.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Please remember to provide attribution even for your own works.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yes there is. the four gospels and a peter barrow from a now non existing Gospel written before Mark dating back to mid century

here are two essays that document this work

Gospel behind the Gospel

part 2

Published 1937? Yikes!

And where does he separate the Markan "empty tomb" material from the pre-Markan "empty tomb" material?
Where does he prove this and what is his evidence? What evidence necessitates that the empty tomb was not
a Markan invention post 70 CE?