Jon Curry's arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous. Not only does he deny that Jesus existed as a historical figure, but he now also argues that every New Testament document attributed to Paul is a forgery, and he proposes absurd theories like the following:
"Maybe the 10% [the percentage of the Christian population that was more reasonable than the other 90%] left Christianity, and as Christians assumed power under Constantine they destroyed all evidence they could which showed their claims to be false. I'm unaware of any anti-Christian polemics that survived the Christian purges other than that which is preserved in the writings of Christians themselves (and hence rebutted)....Had the people at Nag Hammadi not hidden away some of those old texts about Jesus in response to Constantine's orders to have everything burned we'd have never known that some people viewed Jesus as the reincarnation of Seth, or Zoroaster. The orthodox tradition burned the evidence away."
When Jon is asked about the presence of eyewitnesses and their contemporaries in early Christianity, one of his responses is to try to date the death of the apostles and other relevant sources as early as possible. He'll suggest that Christians of the early second century, for example, may not have been influenced by sources like the apostles as much as Christians think they were, since the apostles might have died significantly earlier. The Christians of the second century may have been far enough removed from the apostles so as to have a radically inaccurate view of who the apostles were, what they taught, etc.
One of the problems Jon's argument faces, among many, is the evidence we have for the apostle John's long lifespan. In a recent thread, Jon attempted to dismiss that evidence with the following comment:
"We have other historical reports of John dying early along with James. So it's kind of hard to say. See my above link on the discussion of Papias."
When we go to that link, we find that it's yet another thread that Jon Curry left without interacting with reasonable objections to his claims. And what evidence does he cite there relevant to the lifespan of the apostle John? He cites a passage from Papias, as described by a fifth century source, Philip of Side.
For those who don't know, the writings of Papias were extant until the Middle Ages, but aren't extant any longer. Some sources of earlier centuries, such as Philip of Side, discussed what was in Papias' writings, though, so we thereby have indirect access to some of what Papias wrote.
Here's what Philip of Side tells us:
"Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews."
We can't assume that Philip meant to say that Papias refers to James and John as dying at the same time. Philip doesn't say that. John could have died later, even if he died in the same general manner. The involvement of Jews in the death of James and John doesn't assume a death before the late first century either. James was martyred by Herod through the influence of the Jews (Acts 12:1-3). The same sort of involvement in John's death wouldn't require that the temple still be standing. Jewish opposition to Christianity, including participation in the persecution of Christians, continued after the destruction of the temple, as multiple post-70 sources report. And Jon Curry is assuming the Biblical chronology of Acts 12, in which James died long before the close of the first century. Given how Jon assumes that the New Testament is radically wrong on so many other issues, shouldn't he give us a justification for accepting Biblical chronology here? But even if we accept the chronology of Acts 12, Philip of Side doesn't claim that Papias refers to James and John as dying at the same time or prior to the year 70. Thus, the source Jon cited to support his claim doesn't actually support it. And this was explained to him months ago, in the thread where he cited Philip of Side. Why does Jon keep repeating arguments that have already been refuted?
Another source who had access to Papias' writings, George the Sinner, wrote:
"And, after Domitian, Nerva ruled as king for one year, who, having called John back from the island, released him to house in Ephesus. Being then the only one still alive from the twelve disciples, and having composed the gospel according to himself, he was held worthy of martyrdom. For Papias, the bishop of Heirapolis, who was the eyewitness of this man, in the second volume of the lordly oracles claims that he was done away with by Jews, having clearly fulfilled with his brother the prediction of Christ about them and their own confession about this and submission."
George the Sinner seems to be citing the same passage of Papias that Philip of Side mentioned (both of them cite Papias' second volume), and George explicitly dates John's death to the late first century.
See, further, my documentation of other early sources supporting John's long lifespan here. Compare the quality of the evidence I've cited to the quality of Jon's evidence. See if you agree with Jon that it's "kind of hard to say" which side of the argument is more credible.
I think that Jon reaches such a conclusion for much the same reason why he concludes that Jesus didn't exist, that every Pauline New Testament document is a forgery, etc. He's careless and dishonest about Christianity. Here's what he wrote about himself in another thread, when he was trying to explain why it took him so long to notice some allegedly obvious errors in the Bible:
"I believed for years because I was indoctrinated to believe as a young child, as are many people. I'd sing 'Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.' I'd see as Christians would beg and plead with others to convert and guilt people that didn't tow the line. That has an effect on people. I didn't want to see the inconsistencies and the unrealistic nature of the gospel accounts because like a lot of cultists I was conditioned to not see such things. It's a hard nut to crack. And maybe I'm a little slow."
It seems that he has much the same mindset now. But instead of following sources like his parents and his church in the manner he describes above, he now follows sources like Robert Price and whatever other skeptical material he finds on the web with a Google search.
Well, it's good to see you're not a young earther.
ReplyDeleteIt is not my claim that we have a high degree of confidence that John died early. It's just that we aren't sure. For you, if George the Sinner thinks John died late, well that means he probably did. I say I don't know. I think that's the key difference between us. Ancient history is ancient history. High probabilities in many cases aren't possible. The date of John's death would be one such case.
You rely on I Clement for the authenticity of Paul's documents. Let's see what he has to say about the resurrection. We can have confidence in it. Want to know why? It's because of the Phoenix. Hey if God can raise up the Phoenix every 500 years on the button (because the priests check the registers and dates, you know) well then we can just be sure he'll raise us up. These are the type of people you just can't imagine have gotten things wrong. Here is Clement:
CHAPTER 25 -- THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.
CHAPTER 26 -- WE SHALL RISE AGAIN, THEN, AS THE SCRIPTURE ALSO TESTIFIES.
Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those who have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] says in a certain place, "You shall raise me up, and I shall confess to You;" and again, "I laid down, and slept; I awaked, because You are with me;" and again, Job says, "you shall raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things."
I have little confidence that such people are capable of weeding out spurious Pauline texts and only retaining the authentic ones. That's "increasinly ridiculous" you say, but you're wrong.
I’ll take this occasion to reiterate and expand on a problem I already noted with Jon’s conspiracy theory:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/canon-chronology.html
1.Jon is regurgitating a conspiracy theory of Robert Price, who is, in turn, popularizing the conspiracy theory of Hermann Detering. Detering dates the Pauline corpus to the era of Marcion, who died around 160. Indeed, he attributes the Pauline corpus to a Marcionite “school,” which would presumably shift the date even later into the 2C.
What is more, his redating scheme isn’t limited to the Pauline correspondence, but includes Luke-Acts.
And based on the usual solutions to the Synoptic Problem, that will necessitate a corresponding change in the dates for Matthew and Mark.
And where does that leave the Gospel of John or remaining NT writings? To be consistent, you’d need to redate pretty much the entire NT to the Marcionite era.
2.Now, before I pursue this any further, let’s take a comparison. Suppose a legal scholar writes a history of American Constitutional law.
And suppose he later writes a revised edition in which he redates the U.S. Constitution from the late 18C to the late 19C, but leaves all the other dates intact.
Would that be a coherent procedure? Of course not!
In order to redate the Constitution, he would need to redate a vast amount of other material.
For starters, what would he do with all the documentary references to the Constitutional Convention, Revolutionary War, Founding Fathers, Framers of the Constitution, and Supreme Court Case law that occur before his revised date?
He would need to treat all those documentary references as forgeries. And he’d have to make a case-by-case argument for the spurious character of every documentary reference which putatively antedates his revised dating scheme.
But that’s just the beginning. For later writers refer to earlier historical events and earlier historical figures. Indeed, they refer to them *as* earlier historical figures and events.
So, just as he can’t leave intact the documentary references that antedate his revised dating scheme, but he can’t leave intact the documentary references that postdate his new dating scheme. For what are these later writers actually referring to if the men and events they describe never existed or occurred?
How do we account for their massive misinformation about American Constitutional history?
And if that wasn’t bad enough, the question of relative chronology isn’t limited to the Constitution itself, for American Constitutional history intersects with American history in general at many different junctures. So how many other dates need to be reassigned? How many other historical references must be dismissed as bogus?
3.Dropping the comparison, take Metzger’s standard monograph on The Canon of the New Testament. He arranges the historical witnesses in roughly historical order, from the Apostolic Fathers to Diocletian and the Trullan Synod.
Now, right off the bat, Jon would need to treat all pre-Marcionite references to NT books as spurious. And he’d need to argue that point on a case-by-case basis.
But he would also need to somehow harmonize all post-Marcionite witnesses to pre-Marcionite witnesses with his new dating system.
For post-Marcionite writers don’t merely witness to various books of the NT canon. They also bear witness to the life and work of pre-Marcionite heretics and persecutions and Apostolic Fathers.
In addition, it isn’t a cut-and-dried division between what came before and after Marcion. For in some cases we’re dealing with early and later contemporaries. Their lifespan straddles the newly assigned dating scheme.
What happens when later post-Marcionite writers refer to earlier post-Marcionite writers (writings, events), who, in turn, refer to Marcionite era writers (writings, events), who, in turn, refer to pre-Marcionite writers (writings, events)?
So what is Jon going to do with all this inconvenient material? Are these also fabrications and forgeries? We look forward to his detailed argumentation.
Ask yourself, as you read through Kurt Aland’s History of Christianity or F. F. Bruce’s Spreading Flame how much of their early church history must be radically rewritten to adjust for Jon’s redating scheme.
4.But it doesn’t stop there. By definition, MSS are copies. They presuppose the prior existence (and value) of the literature they copy.
So Jon must also contend with all of the 2-3C MS evidence for the NT. Remember, as I already explained in reference to historical witnesses, the problem isn’t limited to sources that antedate the Marcionite era. You have to make radical readjustments in the post-Marcionite material as well to fit the revised dating scheme.
Ask yourself, as you read through David Trobisch’s monograph on The First Edition of the New Testament or Larry Hurtado’s monograph The Earliest Christian Artifacts how Jon proposes to redate all of the MS evidence to the contrary.
5.Finally, let’s keep in mind that early church history is not a self-contained discipline. Many historical figures and events in church history are embedded in the contemporaneous history of the Roman Empire.
Ask yourself, as you read through Robert Grant’s Augustus to Constantine or Robin Fox’s Pagans and Christians, or Robert Wilken’s Christians As the Romans Saw Them, how many historical substitutions Jon must postulate to pad out his new timeline. Once more, we look forward to his detailed argumentation.
Think of all the massive dislocation which his conspiracy theory introduces into many overlapping and interlocking writers, writing, and events. Somehow, Jon must edit, interpolate, and splice together a complete alternative history to make his conspiracy theory hang together. A new continuum of historical antecedents, synchronies, and consequences.
If Jon wants to date John's death that early, he can go right ahead. That will help us date John's Gospel early too.
ReplyDeleteOr will he argue that John is a forgery too? If so, where's his argument? How much NT scholarship is his willing to jettison?
Jon Curry wrote:
ReplyDelete"For you, if George the Sinner thinks John died late, well that means he probably did. I say I don't know."
That's not what I said. I cited George the Sinner on the issue of how to interpret what Papias said. George the Sinner cited what appears to be the same passage in Papias that Philip of Side discussed. Yet, in the same passage in which George the Sinner cites Papias, he refers to John as living until the late first century. He cites Papias for confirmation of what he had just said about how John's life ended. If Papias had argued that John died decades earlier than George the Sinner had just said he did, it's doubtful that George the Sinner would cite Papias for confirmation of what he had just written about the end of John's life. And George the Sinner uses the same sort of terminology that Philip of Side used regarding John's being put to death by Jews. If George the Sinner could use such terminology in order to describe something that Jews did after the year 70, then so could Philip of Side. Nothing in Philip of Side's comments leads to your conclusion.
I linked you to some posts in which I cite multiple sources of the earliest centuries discussing the timing of John's death. I didn't just say "if George the Sinner thinks John died late, well that means he probably did". Your comments quoted above are highly misleading.
You write:
"Ancient history is ancient history. High probabilities in many cases aren't possible."
We don't need a high probability in order to conclude that John's long lifespan is probable. Since the source you cited on the subject, Philip of Side, doesn't actually support an earlier death of John, and I cited multiple lines of evidence for a later death of John, including from people close to relevant sources of information, why should we believe your claim that it's "kind of hard to say" whether John lived to the late first century?
You write:
"You rely on I Clement for the authenticity of Paul's documents. Let's see what he has to say about the resurrection."
I can understand why you'd rather discuss that subject than discuss your misuse of Philip of Side and whether John lived to the late first century.
You write:
"Let's see what he has to say about the resurrection. We can have confidence in it. Want to know why? It's because of the Phoenix. Hey if God can raise up the Phoenix every 500 years on the button (because the priests check the registers and dates, you know) well then we can just be sure he'll raise us up."
Clement cites the phoenix as an illustration of the future resurrection of Christians. He also uses other illustrations (First Clement, 24), and he doesn't claim that the phoenix illustration is the only or primary reason why Christians believe in a future resurrection. He sees it as an illustration of what God is capable of doing, along with other illustrations. It's further confirmation of belief in a future resurrection. It's not the primary or only reason for that belief.
You write:
"These are the type of people you just can't imagine have gotten things wrong."
Where have I said that I "just can't imagine" that such sources have "gotten things wrong"? As I've explained to you repeatedly, I'm addressing what's historically probable. The issue is probability, not whether it's possible to "imagine" something.
And whether it's probable that a patristic source "got things wrong" depends on what the "things" are. If Clement of Rome is wrong about an account concerning a bird in another part of the world, it doesn't therefore follow that he's probably wrong about other subjects he would have had closer access to or more reason to research, for example.
If Clement's error concerning the phoenix makes him as unreliable as you've suggested, then do you dismiss the historical claims made by sources like Josephus and Tacitus on the same grounds, since such men also believed in things that you would consider incorrect, superstitious, etc.? If a witness in a court of law is known to carry a good luck charm with him or is known to hold other such beliefs that you disagree with, do you dismiss, on that basis, his testimony about a crime he witnessed? Given how many people in the world believe in ghosts, astrology, and other such things you reject, do you think we should dismiss them in law courts and other settings in the same manner in which you've dismissed patristic sources like Clement of Rome? When you were a Christian, should people have dismissed claims you made about the authorship of letters you received from Christian relatives or your pastor, for example, or claims you made about how old a pastor in your church was when he died? Did your belief in Christian concepts that you now consider inaccurate, superstitious, etc. mean that people shouldn't have trusted you on issues like the ones mentioned in the sentence before this one? If your parents tell you that the pastor of their church died as an old man in his eighties, do you dismiss the report as unreliable on the basis that your parents are Christians who believe superstitious things?
What about your credibility since you left Christianity? In this thread alone, we've seen you repeatedly misrepresent my arguments and misrepresent ancient sources, such as Philip of Side. In other threads, you've placed Eusebius of Caesarea in the wrong century and described him as being involved in events that occurred long before his birth (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/healthy-and-unhealthy-skepticism.html), you've made a false claim about the manuscript record that was inaccurate by hundreds of years (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/jon-currys-false-and-misleading-claims.html), you've cited a highly inaccurate Wikipedia article that contained a warning about its own inaccuracy (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/horus-jesus-and-jon-curry.html), etc. Should we dismiss you in the manner in which you've dismissed early Christian sources? Should we conclude that you're so undiscerning that, if you were living with the Christians of the second century, you probably wouldn't be suspicious of a Pauline document that didn't arise until several decades after Paul's death?
In our recent discussions, I've cited Clement of Rome's use of 1 Corinthians as evidence that 1 Corinthians existed prior to the year 130. Criticizing Clement for believing in an account about a phoenix doesn't demonstrate my citation of Clement to be unreasonable. Even if Clement had been the most undiscerning man in the world, he wouldn't have been able to have used a document like 1 Corinthians if it didn't yet exist. Whether we should conclude that Christians like Clement "got things wrong" depends on what the "things" are. Criticizing Clement for being wrong about the phoenix account doesn't give us sufficient reason to dismiss his testimony on the subjects I've cited him for.
You write:
"I have little confidence that such people are capable of weeding out spurious Pauline texts and only retaining the authentic ones."
You don't just deny that they "only retained the authentic ones". You also deny that any of the attributions to Paul are correct.
The claim that the works attributed to Paul are forgeries, with respect to internal evidence, would presume that Jon Curry has access to authentic Pauline documents. However, if he denies the authenticity of the Pauline corpus, where is the corpus of authentic Pauline documents for him to make this judgment?
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately your argumentation doesn't follow in saying that Christianity is "superstitious".
What about your credibility since you left Christianity? In this thread alone, we've seen you repeatedly misrepresent my arguments and misrepresent ancient sources, such as Philip of Side. In other threads, you've placed Eusebius of Caesarea in the wrong century and described him as being involved in events that occurred long before his birth (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/healthy-and-unhealthy-skepticism.html), you've made a false claim about the manuscript record that was inaccurate by hundreds of years (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/jon-currys-false-and-misleading-claims.html), you've cited a highly inaccurate Wikipedia article that contained a warning about its own inaccuracy (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/horus-jesus-and-jon-curry.html), etc. Should we dismiss you in the manner in which you've dismissed early Christian sources? Should we conclude that you're so undiscerning that, if you were living with the Christians of the second century, you probably wouldn't be suspicious of a Pauline document that didn't arise until several decades after Paul's death?
What you aren't understanding is that Christianity is based upon HISTORICAL FACTS which you so ignorantly dismiss. By equating Christianity to people believing in UFO's you are pushing your presuppositions into Christianity and clearly not understanding Christianity in it self. You have yet to made yourself anywhere credible on your arguments, since, you quote from a LIBERAL wack job. I'm not sure if you have ever researched the people you quote or source, but maybe you should.
For example, Goodspeed goes against what Christ taught(as an good ol liberal would):
First, we should note that this marvelous narrative has suffered the brunt of the critics’ barbs for a long while. Because of the incident of Jonah being swallowed by the sea-creature, many modern scholars contend that the document is pure fiction (cf. E. J. Goodspeed, How to Read the Bible, p. 149). Jesus Christ, however, did not so view it. He appealed to the narrative as genuine history (cf. Matthew 12:39-41), and this settles the issue for all who have any regard for the Savior’s deity.
This gives the example that a supposed "Christian" would go against his "masters" teaching. How can you even come close to make Goodspeed credible when he denies the claims that even CHRIST made.
The claim that the works attributed to Paul are forgeries, with respect to internal evidence, would presume that Jon Curry has access to authentic Pauline documents. However, if he denies the authenticity of the Pauline corpus, where is the corpus of authentic Pauline documents for him to make this judgment?
ReplyDeleteI don't have to have authentic letters to recognize all other letters as spurious. Do we need an authentic letter from Jesus to identify the letter from him to King Abgar as spurious? We don't. What seems to happen is that legend starts accruing about a man of the past. He may or may not even have been a historical person. But as legend accrues more and more clout is associated with him until finally people start to write texts in his name to give themselves authenticity.
Robert Price apparently thinks Paul and Simon Magus are one and the same person. If I remember right the Clementine literature critiques Simon Magus and puts in his mouth statements that are directly out of some of the Pauline texts (Galatians I believe). I'll have to look this up. If true, then of course you wouldn't expect to find authentic Pauline literature. You'd look at what you had and look for clues. For instance, retrospective statements from the author of I Cor as if Paul's ministry is over and done with and is being looked back upon and evaluated. (I Paul, laid the foundation, Apollos built on that, and others will do so in the future, etc). References to "traditions as I taught you" is very strange coming from the pioneer founder of a brand new religion, and sounds more like a statement from a later writer that is concerned about certain older beliefs being cast aside.
Jason says, "Well, we sometimes talk about family traditions, so maybe he means it in that sense." Go ahead and buy off on that if you want, but I don't think that makes better sense then what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to have authentic letters to recognize all other letters as spurious. Do we need an authentic letter from Jesus to identify the letter from him to King Abgar as spurious? We don't. What seems to happen is that legend starts accruing about a man of the past. He may or may not even have been a historical person. But as legend accrues more and more clout is associated with him until finally people start to write texts in his name to give themselves authenticity.
You would if you're basing your argument on stylistic issues, which, I would remind you, is the heart of your argument. To say that x is spurious because of specific stylistic problems within the text means that you have a standard of the author's actual work for comparison, or, at the very least, a very good idea of what an authentic copy would look like. That's a fundamental principle of text criticism.