Jason Engwer and Gene Bridges are presently debating Jon Curry, who has made the following admission:
Now to my survey, which is really a summary of points made by Robert Price, which in turn is a summary of some of the arguments made by the old Dutch radical critics.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/hostile-corroboration-of-new-testament.html
This goes back to an article by Hermann Detering, who, among other things, makes the following claim:
Because of the factors already mentioned I am of the opinion that accepting a "Marcionite School" as the cradle of the "Pauline Epistles" is preferable to accepting a Pauline one. Contrary to the latter, the former is undoubtedly a historical fact. The un-Marcionite passages in the Pauline Epistles can as a rule be accounted for as Catholic revisions. In my opinion it is quite conceivable that Marcion and his pupils tried to solve the problems in their congregations on the basis of documents which obtained their authority from the legendary Marcionite parish patron Paul. Equally thinkable is that the clashes mirrored in the Pauline Epistles and which give them that so-called "occasional" and unintelligible character (like the overheard half of a telephone conversation) are nothing more than the reflex of those conflicts which Marcion and his pupils fought out in and with the Marcionite congregations.
It is beyond dispute that a Paul legend did exist in the Christian circles of the second century. The best proof for the existence of such a legend is none other than Luke's Acts of the Apostles.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/articles/Detering.htm
I’d like to point out a rather obvious obstacle in the way of this redating scheme. Marcion died around 160.
So the implication is that we redate the Pauline corpus from the mid-1C to the mid-2C, give or take.
And the scheme isn’t limited to the Pauline epistles. By dating Acts to the same period, one inevitably implicates the synoptic gospels.
And that, in turn, raise the question of where to put the Fourth Gospel and 1 John. Surely one wouldn’t date the Johannine corpus to the 1C while dating the synoptic gospels to the 2C.
Now, one of the logistical problems which this redating scheme overlooks is that you can’t move most of the NT forward by a century or so while leaving all of the other dates in early church history in place. For many other individuals, movements, writings, and events are historically and/or literarily dependent on the prior existence and influence of the NT.
Therefore, if you push the NT forward by a hundred years, that is going to have a domino effect on any number of other dates. It affects the dating of everyone and everything that quotes or cites or alludes to the NT. Manuscripts. Church fathers. Heretics. NT apocrypha. Local synods. And so on and so forth.
Relative chronology is a web of synchronies involving younger and older contemporaries, as well as diachronic relations involving predecessors and successors. It also involves a sequential chain of prior, simultaneous, and posterior events.
So the chronology of the NT is not a self-contained question. It spills over into the chronology of the early church. And that, in turn, spills over into the chronology of the Roman Empire. You can’t make a radical, but discrete change in the dating of most all of the NT while leaving all the other dates intact.
To upwardly revise the date of the NT by a hundred years or so would necessitate a corresponding and complete readjustment in all of the other dates in early church history and Roman history which are impacted by that revision.
And at the risk of stating the obvious, these dates were not arrived at on dogmatic grounds. Modern scholars of Roman history are not dating events to accommodate a theological agenda.
Does Curry or Price or Detering have the slightest idea of what would be involved in revising early church chronology and Roman history to make room for their radical revision of NT chronology? You can only revise it en bloc.
I’d like to see one of them present a detailed timeline of how that’s going to pan out. And they also need to explain how they go about reinterpreting all the archeological data that church historians and Roman historians use to reconstruct a relative chronology of early church history in particular and Roman imperial history in general—where the two often intersect.
Steve, have you heard of David Trobisch, and his works "Paul's Letter Collection" (1994 Augsburg Fortress Press) and "The First Edition of the New Testament"? I recently purchased both books, but not read them.
ReplyDeleteThe contention in the first is that Paul himself first collected and edited his own letters, in response to "quarels between the apostle Paul and the saints in Jerusalem with their leaders Peter adn James" (The first four letters of Paul -- Romans Corinthians and Galatians -- represent Paul's side of the argument) and that "Paul basically gave birth to the concept of a Christian Canon." (from the introduction).
I suggest that people also read the thread in which this discussion originated, which Steve links to at the beginning of his post. See how many unsupported and dubious assertions Jon Curry makes, how much he ignores, how often he repeats arguments already refuted, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs Steve has said, moving documents like Romans and 1 Corinthians to the second century would have an effect on many sources related to that dating. If a document dated to the first century seems to use another document that's being redated to the second century, then will that first document also be dismissed as a forgery? What about hostile corroboration for the earlier dating, sources who were born decades prior to Marcion's time who affirm the traditional dating of the New Testament documents, etc.? If a second century document referring to such data is dismissed as a forgery or interpolated, then there would be further implications for the sources surrounding that second century document.
What specific problems would you think this view creates?
ReplyDeleteJason lists supposedly two. What of a 1st century document that cites the supposedly 2nd century Pauline text. What document do you have in mind, and would you provide a citation?
What about hostile corroboration? Where do these early hostile witnesses claim knowledge of the authorship attributions? Jason, I asked you about Celsus and you say it's "ridiculous" to think he's not aware of this. He does refer to them as written by disciples after all. But that's not the same thing as saying you know that Matthew, Mark, or Luke wrote it.
Jason also argues that the gospels probably had titles as originally written. Most critical scholars don't think so. They think that originally a church may have just had one. When they came into possession of more than one it became necessary to distinguish them, hence the uniform heading style "Kata Matthias, Kata Lukas" etc. Jason argues here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/anonymous-gospels.htm
that this is because this terminology for a heading became common. This seems highly dubious. I think the explanation of most critical scholars makes better sense. It also makes better sense of the fact that the Gospel of John was attributed to Cerinthus. This is harder to do if it has the title "According to John." Jason says they still could have denied the title. Again, that's a possibility, but seems less probable.
So Celsus for instance doesn't say who he thinks the authors supposedly are and there is a distinct possibility that the gospels as written didn't have titles. Even if he did accept these attributions, he's writing around 170, so how is that a problem? Are there other difficulties that result from this dating scheme?
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"What specific problems would you think this view creates? Jason lists supposedly two."
No, I mentioned more than two in this thread, and I mentioned more in the other thread Steve referenced.
You write:
"What of a 1st century document that cites the supposedly 2nd century Pauline text. What document do you have in mind, and would you provide a citation?"
I've already given you examples of relevant documents in the other thread. I used the example of first century documents in this thread, but second century documents that predate the time when the Pauline documents allegedly were written would be relevant as well. In the other thread, I gave you examples of the use of Pauline documents in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. I also mentioned the example of First Clement's use of 1 Corinthians. Compilations of the use of Pauline documents in sources of the first and early second centuries are widely available, such as in the book I cited by Clayton Jefford in the other thread, The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006).
You write:
"What about hostile corroboration? Where do these early hostile witnesses claim knowledge of the authorship attributions? Jason, I asked you about Celsus and you say it's 'ridiculous' to think he's not aware of this. He does refer to them as written by disciples after all. But that's not the same thing as saying you know that Matthew, Mark, or Luke wrote it."
One of the problems in our discussions with you is that you frequently ignore what you've been told, including what you've been told recently and repeatedly. I cited more examples than Celsus in the other thread, and I explained why it would be unreasonable to conclude that somebody such as Celsus wasn't aware of who the gospels were attributed to. Given that we have no record of the gospels' being attributed to other disciples of Jesus, and given that Origen doesn't have to correct Celsus or any of the heretics or other groups he mentions in his treatise, what other disciples of Jesus would Celsus have in mind?
You write:
"Jason also argues that the gospels probably had titles as originally written. Most critical scholars don't think so. They think that originally a church may have just had one. When they came into possession of more than one it became necessary to distinguish them, hence the uniform heading style 'Kata Matthias, Kata Lukas' etc."
Most scholars would date the writing of the second gospel in the seventies or eighties, which would mean that, under the scenario you describe above, titles would be appearing while eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the apostles were still alive, even some contemporaries of Jesus. But whatever date is given to the second gospel, the titling would be in effect when, or near the time when, the last three gospels arose.
Regardless, as I've explained to you many times, titles wouldn't have been the only means of identifying a work. They also would have been identified by means of oral accounts accompanying the circulation of the document and by labels. Most of the New Testament documents either name an author in the main body of the text or give some description of the author, such as in the "we" passages of Acts. With regard to the gospels in particular, the problems with arguing for their early anonymity have been discussed here repeatedly, and you keep ignoring large portions of what's been said.
You write:
"It also makes better sense of the fact that the Gospel of John was attributed to Cerinthus. This is harder to do if it has the title 'According to John.' Jason says they still could have denied the title. Again, that's a possibility, but seems less probable."
I think this is at least the second time I've corrected you on this point. Some of the same people who argued that Cerinthus authored the fourth gospel also argued that he authored Revelation. And Revelation repeatedly refers to its author as "John". The claim these people were making was that Cerinthus wrote as if he was John. If Cerinthus had been writing as himself, he wouldn't have described himself as an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry (John 1:14, 1 John 1:1-3), Jesus' beloved disciple (John 21:24), and "John" (Revelation 1:1).
Besides, under your scenario above, the gospels would have already had titles when people argued for Cerinthus as the author in the late second century and beyond. If you're going to argue that they had historical information telling them that the gospels originally didn't have titles, then why should we think that people could remember such historical facts, yet so widely forget other facts that you don't like, such as when the documents actually were written and who actually wrote them?
You write:
"So Celsus for instance doesn't say who he thinks the authors supposedly are and there is a distinct possibility that the gospels as written didn't have titles."
The issue is what's probable, not what's "distinctly possible". And even if the gospels didn't have titles originally, the titles would have been early enough to have been of significant worth for authorship attribution. But, again, titles wouldn't have been the only means of identifying the author early on. There also would have been descriptions of the author within the text, oral reports, labels, etc.
You write:
"Even if he did accept these attributions, he's writing around 170, so how is that a problem?"
You've ignored the answer when I've given it before, but let me repeat it for the benefit of other readers. Just as Christians passed on information from generation to generation, so did other people. A Jewish rabbi or Roman philosopher wouldn't suddenly realize, one day in the middle of the second century, that it would be a good idea to come up with some arguments to use against Christians. He would have had some arguments passed down to him by relatives, teachers, etc., and he would have had access to what previous generations had written in response to Christians. Thus, for example, we see reflections of the concept that Jesus was a sorcerer or magician not only in the gospels, but also in Josephus, the Talmud, Trypho in Justin's Dialogue, etc. If there were problems with Christianity as radical as Jesus' nonexistence as a historical figure or the Pauline epistles' not having been written until around the middle of the second century, such problems would be easy to notice. If you're a Jewish opponent of Christianity, you probably aren't going to argue that Jesus was empowered by Satan and that His disciples stole His body from the tomb if your grandparents and your rabbis have told you that the Christians of their generation believed in a non-earthly Jesus and that the empty tomb accounts were unheard of until recently.
What of a 1st century document that cites the supposedly 2nd century Pauline text. What document do you have in mind, and would you provide a citation?
ReplyDeleteA. This is a startling admission, Mr. Curry. You're the one making claims about the authorship of the NT and you don't even know which of the documents are in view? Clearly, you've not considered your position, which is one thing we've been arguing.
B. The issue isn't 1st century documents citing supposedly 2nd century texts. Rather the issue is documents known to antedate the period necessary for a "Marcionite School" to have composed the documents you wish to date late making references to those documents, for how can the earlier documents cite the later ones? That could also apply to documents from the very early 2nd century. Marcionites were not around during that period. If you believe they were, you'll need to provide historical evidence.
C. You might try 1 Clement. 1 Clement refers directly to 1 Corinthians.
D. And if the Pauline corpus was a product of Marcionism, then why do we find the Catholic apologists and Fathers quoting from them approvingly? That would not make sense.
I also mentioned the example of First Clement's use of 1 Corinthians.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm saying is, to address your issue let's take a look at the citation you have in mind. You haven't offered any citations.
Given that we have no record of the gospels' being attributed to other disciples of Jesus, and given that Origen doesn't have to correct Celsus or any of the heretics or other groups he mentions in his treatise, what other disciples of Jesus would Celsus have in mind?
So if he doesn't say, then he must have meant Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? This is poor reasoning.
Most scholars would date the writing of the second gospel in the seventies or eighties, which would mean that, under the scenario you describe above, titles would be appearing while eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the apostles were still alive, even some contemporaries of Jesus.
I have no idea why you think this means titles would appear while contemporaries of the apostles are still alive. Titles start to appear when groups come into posession of multiple gospels. That could happen after these supposed contemporaries are dead.
They also would have been identified by means of oral accounts accompanying the circulation of the document and by labels.
You don't know this.
There also would have been descriptions of the author within the text, oral reports, labels, etc.
Your evidence is a speculation that there just must have been oral reports, labels, etc. Even if it were true this wouldn't make the claim reliable, but regardless this is nothing but wishful thinking. This is really stretching.
You've ignored the answer when I've given it before, but let me repeat it for the benefit of other readers.
And you proceed to argue that it just must have been there long before, even though we have no evidence for this, becuase it wouldn't just spring up overnight. You stretch this concept to "from generation to generation." "Passed down" from "grandparents and your rabbis." So here's Celsus at 170. He gives no indication that he knows who wrote any of the gospels. But he just must have, because he refers to them as memoirs of the disciples. He must have known, because, well, they must have talked about it. Somebody must have said something, and they must have said what you want them to have said. An though there is no evidence, we know that since they must have talked about it, further they must have talked about it in the generations previous. And since they talked about it in the generations previous, they must further have talked about it generations previous to that, because it wouldn't just spring up over night to our "grandparents and rabbi's." So what the heck, it must have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But you've made this point before. Why do I continue to leave discussions and fail to respond to your "arguments"?
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"All I'm saying is, to address your issue let's take a look at the citation you have in mind. You haven't offered any citations."
You're being either dishonest or careless. Here's what you said earlier in this thread:
"What document do you have in mind, and would you provide a citation?"
Notice the "and". You were asking for a document, so why are you now claiming that "all you're saying" is that you want a citation within that document? In the other thread, after I mentioned First Clement, you wrote:
"I haven't looked into the Clementines."
I referred to First Clement, not "the Clementines". And your response was to tell us that you "haven't looked into" it. Here we have one of the earliest patristic documents, written by one Pauline church to another, and you haven't "looked into it". And you need us to give you citations. Shouldn't you have done such research before participating in lengthy discussions about dating Pauline documents to the second century?
I've given you a citation of a book that discusses the use of the New Testament in the earliest patristic sources (Clayton Jefford's book). The information is widely available. I'm not going to take the time to write out and discuss all of the relevant passages for somebody as irresponsible and dishonest as you are. You've wasted my time and the time of other readers more than enough already. You can start with chapter 47 of First Clement, then do some more research on your own.
You write:
"So if he doesn't say, then he must have meant Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? This is poor reasoning."
That's not what I said. As I explained, Celsus made his comments in a historical context, and we know what Origen wrote in response to him. Since nobody in the historical period in question is known to have been attributing the gospels to other disciples of Jesus, and since we see widespread attributions to the disciples in question in other sources writing around the same time, it makes more sense to conclude that Celsus had those popular attributions in mind. I doubt that he thought that Matthew's gospel was written by Andrew instead.
You write:
"Titles start to appear when groups come into posession of multiple gospels. That could happen after these supposed contemporaries are dead."
Contemporaries of the apostles likely would have lived into the second century. And we know what sort of networking existed in early Christianity, as reflected in the Pauline letters. (You've suggested that a forger would write with verisimilitude, so, even under your scenario, the accounts of widespread networking reflected in the Pauline letters are realistic.) It's also reflected in the widespread correspondence and traveling among the early post-apostolic Christians. And some of the earliest patristic sources seem to have drawn material from multiple gospels, as reflected in the book by Clayton Jefford cited above, for example. Thus, a scenario in which churches didn't possess more than one gospel until after the contemporaries of the apostles were dead is unlikely.
You write:
"You don't know this."
The issue isn't whether we "know" it in the sense of certainty. The issue is probability, and the concept of the gospels circulating anonymously, as you're suggesting, is unlikely. I've explained why elsewhere:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/significance-of-eyewitness-testimony.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/anonymous-gospels.html
Why don't you interact with the evidence instead of just saying "you don't know this"?
You write:
"And since they talked about it in the generations previous, they must further have talked about it generations previous to that, because it wouldn't just spring up over night to our 'grandparents and rabbi's.' So what the heck, it must have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
That's not what I said. If you want to respond to my argument, instead of responding to a mischaracterization of it, then you can go back and reread what I said and try again.
Notice the "and". You were asking for a document, so why are you now claiming that "all you're saying" is that you want a citation within that document?
ReplyDeleteUhmmm, because citations come from specific books, and I'd like to know which specific book you are talking about and which specific location within the book you are talking about. This makes me dishonest?
And your response was to tell us that you "haven't looked into" it. Here we have one of the earliest patristic documents, written by one Pauline church to another, and you haven't "looked into it".
You asked me if I had an opinion on whether or not it was spurious and I haven't looked into that subject, so I said so. I'm not ashamed of saying I don't know. If I haven't studied it I say that. Maybe Christians like yourself think it is shameful to say "I don't know" because you think you have all of life's questions figured out because supposedly the Creator of the Universe talks to you through sacred writings, but we skeptics just say we don't know when we don't know.
I've given you a citation of a book that discusses the use of the New Testament in the earliest patristic sources (Clayton Jefford's book). The information is widely available. I'm not going to take the time to write out and discuss all of the relevant passages for somebody as irresponsible and dishonest as you are. You've wasted my time and the time of other readers more than enough already. You can start with chapter 47 of First Clement, then do some more research on your own.
Well, I don't have Clayton Jefford's book, so what can I say. When I make claims about what the Bible says, you often become indignant because I haven't provided the citation. For instance, at the Healthy and Unhealthy Skepticism thread I point out that (pseudo) Paul is battling forgeries and you say "Once again, you make a claim without offering any documentation." You apparently needed the citation, which I then provided (2 Thess 2:2). As we talk about Paul in Philippians and I point out that Paul as presented as if on the eve of his trial, not knowing what the results will be you say "You don't tell us which specific passages in Philippians you have in view". That's Phil 1:20-26. If you are going to demand that of texts for which we are both more familiar, why don't I have a right to ask you for a citation from I Clement when you make an assertion about what is contained within it? If I were like you I'd say "I'm not going to do this legwork for you. You've wasted enough of my time as it is. Why don't you read the Bible? Aren't you familiar with the Bible, you irresponsible, dishonest, lazy college student." You could try a little something I like to call “charity” but of course I know not to expect that at this point.
As far as wasting your time, this is a blog. Nobody is twisting your arm making you reply to me. The amount of time you spend here is your decision to make, not mine, so you have nobody to blame but yourself if you are unhappy about it. The fact is your personality does not permit you to let things go, so you will respond every time. But that's not my fault.
Since nobody in the historical period in question is known to have been attributing the gospels to other disciples of Jesus, and since we see widespread attributions to the disciples in question in other sources writing around the same time, it makes more sense to conclude that Celsus had those popular attributions in mind. I doubt that he thought that Matthew's gospel was written by Andrew instead.
Widespread attributions at the same time as Celsus? How about some citations to back up that claim. Or is this another one of those “It just must have been even though I have no hard evidence” claims?
Contemporaries of the apostles likely would have lived into the second century.
How far into the second century? Remember, the average lifespan at the time is 45 years of age for a man that survives childhood. On average contemporaries would be dead in the 1st century. So how many are alive into the 130's and later, particularly when you have the destruction of the temple and all of these people dying as martyrs? I know, I know. "Could have happened. It's logically possible. What logically prevents someone from living to the age of 120 or 130? There's no logical contradiction there."
And we know what sort of networking existed in early Christianity, as reflected in the Pauline letters. (You've suggested that a forger would write with verisimilitude, so, even under your scenario, the accounts of widespread networking reflected in the Pauline letters are realistic.) It's also reflected in the widespread correspondence and traveling among the early post-apostolic Christians. And some of the earliest patristic sources seem to have drawn material from multiple gospels, as reflected in the book by Clayton Jefford cited above, for example. Thus, a scenario in which churches didn't possess more than one gospel until after the contemporaries of the apostles were dead is unlikely.
I don't know how a document, giving the appearance of networking, and early Christians drawing from the same source material as the gospel authors shows that contemporaries would still be alive out to the 130's. But even if true, the example of Sabbatai Sevi shows that it doesn't matter. You do not interact with the actual point I'm making with Sabbatai Sevi, and you never have. You'll argue that he doesn't have the exact same kind of evidence as what we have for the gospels. You talk about how people contradicted his miraculous claims. This is irrelevant. Focus here on my actual point. I'll do it again, for what it's worth.
You say that if contemporaries of the apostles are still alive, they would stamp out false attributions and false claims made about the disciples. The example of Sabbatai Sevi shows that your claim is false. His principle disciple denied the claims made about him, and this made absolutely no difference to his devoted followers. You can't stop people from believing what they want to believe, or if in the event they already have too much invested in a claim, they can't bring themselves to admit that they've been wasting their time.
Your point about the evidence being different or about his own denials or denials of critics does not address this specific point about the nature of people believing what they want to believe, and ignoring the best evidence available. You will continue to ignore it, and criticize me for not responding to your arguments. But I explain why your arguments are beside the point. You won't deal with my points head on. Answer this question. Would the claims of contemporaries have changed the minds of Sabbatai Sevi's devoted followers? Yes or no. If no, why do you continue to make this argument with regards to the gospels. Don't switch the topic to other lines of evidence and other arguments that you make. Focus on this one argument that you make repeatedly. It doesn't work for Sabbatai Sevi, therefore it doesn't work for you.
Let's again repeat your supposed "response" on Sevi just to illustrate how badly you miss the point, and let's see if we can get through to you. This is from the other thread.
we don't have evidence against something like Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians that's comparable to the evidence we have against Sabbati Sevi.
Of course we don't and I don't deny that. I'm responding to your claim that contemporaries could have swayed devoted followers if they didn't want to be swayed. So this point doesn't address my point.
You haven't given us reasons to trust the early followers of Sevi comparable to the evidence we've produced for trusting the early Christians.
Of course I don't even think you should trust the followers of Sevi, nor am I saying that the evidence for trusting Sevi's followers is as good as the evidence from early Christians. My point is that in the case where we are closer to the historical events (and hence have access to more information) we know that contemporaries of Sevi couldn't sway his devoted followers if the followers don't want to be swayed. Why should we think in the case of the early Christians, where evidence is less accessible, that in their case for some reason they would have acted in such a different way? So this doesn't address my point.
We've addressed in depth issues such as the early Christians' moral standards, their concern for eyewitness testimony, their view of forgeries, etc. You haven't offered any comparable analysis of the early followers of Sevi.
Yes you did, and when you were shown that nothing you've shown demonstrated exceptional moral standards you replied (again at Healthy and Unhealthy Skepticism) that you don't need to demonstrate out of the ordinary moral behavior. In other words, these are just typical people. That's what I'm talking about. In general, where we have specific information, we see that evidence from contemporaries contravening the beliefs of the followers makes no difference. So your argument that these contemporaries would have been able to change things is proven false. Let's remember that most early Christians are taught "to believe without reasons." No shame in that for Origen apparently. So how concerned are they with digging up and proving that the eyewitness testimony is genuine. Being "concerned" with eyewitness testimony is great. Every Benny Hinn follower is "concerned" about evidence. How many actually get out there and ferret through the evidence.
And not everybody believed that Sabbati Sevi performed miracles. The disciple of Sevi you're referring to (Nathan) was just that: a disciple. Yet, he denied the miracles in question. Other followers stopped following Sevi, and the enemies of Sevi denied the miracles.
It's just amazing to me that you think this statement somehow helps your case. This in no way is a denial of my claim. You cannot stop devoted followers from believing what they want to believe. Even when the contrary evidence is extremely powerful (the lead disciple and his enemies denied his abilities) this doesn't prevent the faithful from just pressing on as normal. So why should we believe your argument that if the contemporaries are still alive (which is doubtful) this would have stopped anything?
For the authorship of 1 Corinthians to be comparable to such a situation, we'd have to see a seventeenth chapter in 1 Corinthians that denies its Pauline authorship (like Sevi's apostasy),
Talk about wasting time, I can see that I'm wasting my time right now. What an irrelevant point. Is it my claim that the evidence against I Cor's authenticity is identical to that of Sabbatai Sevi? Or rather is my point that powerful evidence to the contrary doesn't stop the faithful? You'd save us both a lot of time if you'd actually interact with my point.
a denial of Pauline authorship by the earliest Corinthian Christians (like the denials by Sevi's leading disciple), denials of Pauline authorship by Corinthians who left the Corinthian church (like the followers of Sevi who left the movement), and denials of Pauline authorship by early heretical groups and other opponents of Paul (like the denials by Sevi's enemies).
Here again you make the same irrelevant point. So your big long paragraph never once dealt with the point that I was actually making. This is why I do not respond to your arguments. They don't address what I'm actually saying. You do waste a lot of my time, but it is my decision to waste this time, so I won't blame you.
The issue isn't whether we "know" it in the sense of certainty.
The statement you had made was not only something you don't know, it was something that is entirely speculative. You had said "They also would have been identified by means of oral accounts accompanying the circulation of the document and by labels." That's just false, so it is appropriate for me to respond and say you don't know that they would have. They might have but it's hard to say.
Jon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Uhmmm, because citations come from specific books, and I'd like to know which specific book you are talking about and which specific location within the book you are talking about. This makes me dishonest?"
I was responding to your "all I'm saying" comment, in which you acted as if you were only asking for a citation within a book that you knew about. I said that you were being either careless or dishonest, since you had asked, earlier, what document I had in mind and what passage within that document. Your "all I'm saying" comment suggested that you were asking for less than you had been.
You write:
"I'm not ashamed of saying I don't know."
Yet, you keep participating in these discussions in which your arguments depend on what you're ignorant about.
You write:
"Well, I don't have Clayton Jefford's book, so what can I say."
As I said before, the information is widely available. But even if it was only in Jefford's book, your unwillingness to consult that book wouldn't refute my citation of it.
You write:
"If you are going to demand that of texts for which we are both more familiar, why don't I have a right to ask you for a citation from I Clement when you make an assertion about what is contained within it?"
I gave you a citation of a book that addresses First Clement and some of the other relevant sources.
Patristic use of the New Testament is a subject that's addressed in many easily accessible sources. What you have in mind when you make vague assertions about how "Paul is presented as if on the eve of his trial, not knowing what the results will be" in Philippians, which supposedly suggests that Philippians is a forgery, isn't so easily accessible. Your argument is so weak that nearly every scholar in the world rejects it. You suggested that Philippians was written as if Paul was on his deathbed, yet the letter repeatedly has Paul speaking of his future ministry (1:25-26, 2:24). How does anything you've mentioned suggest a forgery? It doesn't. My expecting you to do research on New Testament citations in First Clement isn't comparable to your expecting me to know what passages you have in mind when you make vague assertions about how you supposedly conclude that Philippians is a forgery.
You write:
"Widespread attributions at the same time as Celsus? How about some citations to back up that claim."
I've already given you citations in previous discussions. I've discussed Papias, Irenaeus, the Christian and heretical sources mentioned by Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, the early gospel manuscripts, etc. These sources come from a wide variety of backgrounds and locations. You, in contrast, haven't cited a single comparable source who attributes the gospels to other disciples of Jesus, which is the issue under discussion in this context.
You write:
"Or is this another one of those 'It just must have been even though I have no hard evidence' claims?"
I've offered far more documentation for my claims than you've offered for yours.
You write:
"Remember, the average lifespan at the time is 45 years of age for a man that survives childhood. On average contemporaries would be dead in the 1st century. So how many are alive into the 130's and later, particularly when you have the destruction of the temple and all of these people dying as martyrs?"
You're repeating arguments that I've addressed in other threads that you left (for example, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/sources-for-infancy-narratives.html). You offer no documentation for your "average lifespan" claim relevant to the objections Steve and I discussed in the thread linked above. Since many people would live above any average, we aren't limited to whatever average we accept. If even one apostle or other relevant source lived into his eighties, for example, then there could easily be contemporaries of the apostles alive as late as 130 and beyond.
And it's not as if we have nothing but averages to go by. We have historical reports of some disciples of Jesus living into the late first century, as Richard Bauckham discusses in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), for example, and as I've discussed before with regard to the apostle John, for instance (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/mary-and-john-as-examples-of-sources.html).
Your reference to people dying in the fall of Jerusalem isn't of much significance, as I've explained before. The apostles traveled widely. They went outside of Jerusalem within Israel, and they traveled outside of Israel.
The issue I was addressing in the comment you responded to was when Christians would have possessed more than one gospel. You've given us no good reason to think that it didn't occur until 130 or later. Given the networking that existed in early Christianity, it's highly unlikely that it would have taken so long for Christians to begin having more than one gospel. As Bauckham discusses in his book, Papias seems to have had more than one. The possession of more than one seems to have been common (Eusebius, Church History, 3:37:2). Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is set in the 130s, assumes that the gospels were so widespread as to be read by non-Christians (Dialogue With Trypho, 10). Similarly, Aristides assumes that non-Christians have access to the documents (Apology, 2). See, further, Bruce Metzger's discussion of the use of multiple gospels by the earliest patristic sources in The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). This sort of information is easily accessible, and I've addressed the subject in some of our previous discussions. You keep ignoring or forgetting what you're told, and you don't make much of an effort to research these issues before you participate in these threads and make your assertions.
You write:
"His [Sabbati Sevi's] principle disciple denied the claims made about him, and this made absolutely no difference to his devoted followers."
I've addressed your citation of Sabbati Sevi in previous discussions, and you keep ignoring much of what you've been told. The fact that Sevi continued to have some followers doesn't change the fact that many also stopped following him, that his enemies denied that he performed miracles, etc. And the disciple you're referring to, Nathan, was just that: a disciple. Yet, he denied that miracles occurred. How is such a situation comparable to something like the universal attribution of 1 Corinthians to Paul? You're assuming that all of the Christian sources relevant to 1 Corinthians were like some of Sevi's followers who kept following him. We don't have evidence against Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians comparable to the evidence we have against Sevi, so the two are on unequal footing from the start. Then you have to selectively focus on some of the people who kept following Sevi (not Nathan, for example) and assume that all of the ancient Christian sources relevant to 1 Corinthians are comparable to them rather than comparable to Nathan or the people who abandoned Sevi after initially following him. And, even if we granted all of those dubious steps in your argument, that still doesn't explain why non-Christian sources would corroborate the Pauline authorship or not dispute it. You keep relying on vague arguments, like your appeal to Sabbati Sevi, without addressing the relevant details of early Christianity.
You write:
"Let's again repeat your supposed 'response' on Sevi just to illustrate how badly you miss the point, and let's see if we can get through to you."
Your "point" is frequently unexplained or different from the "point" you were addressing earlier. But I'm not under any obligation to limit my comments to whatever issue you want to focus on.
You write:
"Of course I don't even think you should trust the followers of Sevi, nor am I saying that the evidence for trusting Sevi's followers is as good as the evidence from early Christians."
Then why should we think that the early Christians were comparable to the particular followers of Sevi you want to focus on? Nobody has denied that some people are unreasonable. If you want to make the case that the early Christians were unreasonable, then you need to address the details relevant to the early Christians rather than drawing parallels with some followers of Sevi without offering us any justification for your selection of those followers. Why not conclude that the early Christians were like Nathan or like the followers who left Sevi, for example? Or why not conclude that they were different from the Sevi movement as a whole?
You write:
"Why should we think in the case of the early Christians, where evidence is less accessible, that in their case for some reason they would have acted in such a different way?"
Because of the data I've been citing from Richard Bauckham, Glenn Miller, and other sources, data you keep ignoring while you draw vague parallels to the Sabbati Sevi movement.
You write:
"In general, where we have specific information, we see that evidence from contemporaries contravening the beliefs of the followers makes no difference."
Why are we supposed to believe that? Even the people who kept following Sabbati Sevi recognized their need to adjust their beliefs, and so what they believed changed significantly. They had to adjust to facts such as Sevi's apostasy.
You write:
"Being 'concerned' with eyewitness testimony is great. Every Benny Hinn follower is 'concerned' about evidence. How many actually get out there and ferret through the evidence."
You keep repeating objections we've already addressed without attempting to interact with what we wrote in response previously. See my previous comments about the role of eyewitnesses and relatives of Jesus in the early church, the concern for historical information reflected in documents like the gospels and Acts, the role of associates of the apostles in the early post-apostolic church, what men like Irenaeus and Tertullian said about their sources for their information about Polycarp, etc. I've repeatedly discussed such issues with you, but you keep leaving the discussions, and you ignore so much of what you're told.
You write:
"You cannot stop devoted followers from believing what they want to believe. Even when the contrary evidence is extremely powerful (the lead disciple and his enemies denied his abilities) this doesn't prevent the faithful from just pressing on as normal. So why should we believe your argument that if the contemporaries are still alive (which is doubtful) this would have stopped anything?"
The followers of Sevi didn't "press on as normal". They had to significantly change their belief system. And the people who disagreed with those followers of Sevi left traces in the historical record. In contrast, you're asking us to assume that not only were all of the early Christians mistaken on issues like whether Jesus existed and Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, but so were the enemies of Christianity who corroborated such facts. And you want us to believe that if there were people disputing such facts, they didn't leave traces in the historical record, even though so many other facts of a more minor nature did leave traces. While we have so much evidence against the sources you're citing as parallels (Sevi's apostasy, the documented false miracle claims of Benny Hinn, etc.), you offer nothing comparable against something like Paul's authorship of Romans or 1 Corinthians. Instead, we just get absurd claims that a passage like Romans 11:9 or 1 Corinthians 3:10 suggests that the document is a forgery. Then you point to some unreasonable followers of Sabbati Sevi and Benny Hinn and ask us to assume that the early Christians were similarly unreasonable. Your interpretations of passages like Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 3 are ridiculous, and the reason why you keep pointing us away from the early Christians to some followers of Sevi and Hinn is because the evidence we have related to the early Christians doesn't lead to your desired conclusion.
You write:
"The statement you had made was not only something you don't know, it was something that is entirely speculative. You had said 'They also would have been identified by means of oral accounts accompanying the circulation of the document and by labels.' That's just false, so it is appropriate for me to respond and say you don't know that they would have. They might have but it's hard to say."
Again, you need to interact with the data I cited from Hengel and Bauckham in the links I posted earlier:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/significance-of-eyewitness-testimony.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/anonymous-gospels.html
We know how documents were commonly treated in antiquity. And we have some specific information from early Christian sources regarding how the documents were used in church services and in other contexts. Even without such data, it's unlikely that documents would circulate anonymously for decades, then begin being attributed to the same authors by such a wide variety of sources. Papias was interested in gospel authorship, and he cites church leadership that predated him as passing on such information (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:15). Orthodox and heretical sources who grew up in the late first or early second century (Justin Martyr, Ptolemy, etc.) either refer to the gospel authors by name or describe them with a term like "apostle". People can be expected to be interested in who wrote a document, and interest in authorship is reflected in sources from the apostolic generation onward. A work that begins with emphasis on eyewitness testimony and the credibility of the author's research (Luke 1:1-3) and with a named dedicatee (Luke 1:3) and that goes on to identify its author as an associate of an apostle (Acts 16:10) would create interest in who wrote it. A passage like John 21:24 would be written because there was interest in who wrote such a document.
I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to my request for your citation of a 1st century document referring to Pauline texts. Supposedly I'm dishonest for saying "all I'm saying" is I want a citation." I think the problem is you need to read my comments in a charitable way (i.e. make an effort to understand, as opposed to reading everything with this aggressive posture where you want what I say to be incoherent, dishonest, whatever you may be looking for). If you don't understand, ask.
ReplyDeleteYet, you keep participating in these discussions in which your arguments depend on what you're ignorant about.
My arguments do not depend on 1 Clement being spurious, so this claim is false.
But even if it was only in Jefford's book, your unwillingness to consult that book wouldn't refute my citation of it.
But I didn't say that my unwillingness to consult that book refutes your citation of it. Again, what you seem to think are "arguments" in response to what I say are nothing of the kind. Your replies to me often have nothing to do with what I say.
What you have in mind when you make vague assertions about how "Paul is presented as if on the eve of his trial, not knowing what the results will be" in Philippians, which supposedly suggests that Philippians is a forgery, isn't so easily accessible.
Why not? Don't you know what Philippians is about? Don't you know the major themes? Haven't you read this multiple times, as I have?
Your argument is so weak that nearly every scholar in the world rejects it.
Now you're back to nose count arguments, which when I pointed out the absurdity of this argument before you basically denied that you had really made it. But you're making it again. Evangelicals are not unwilling to take minority positions, and neither am I.
My expecting you to do research on New Testament citations in First Clement isn't comparable to your expecting me to know what passages you have in mind when you make vague assertions about how you supposedly conclude that Philippians is a forgery.
This is again an assertion, not an argument. I've shown that these are comparable. When I point out that Paul is battling forgeries, you need a citation. I offered you one, but could have offered several, since this is all over the Pauline corpus. It's not a problem for me. I'll give you a citation if you ask. Why do you need to respond with so much acrimony when I ask the same thing of you?
I've already given you citations in previous discussions. I've discussed Papias, Irenaeus, the Christian and heretical sources mentioned by Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, the early gospel manuscripts, etc.
And I've already explained that it is not clear that Papias is referring to the canonical gospels. You responded with your "argument" that Papias' description of the book of Mark as "not in order" aptly describes a book like Mark that starts at the beginning of Jesus ministry and follows it through until it culiminates and Jesus death and resurrection, because there just may be some chronological switcheroo in there even though we're given no indication of that within the text. So why would Papias describe this text as "not in order"? Who knows, even though that description would make perfect sense of a text like the Kerygmata Petrou. His description of Matthew doesn't match our Matthew, though it does match the Gospel to the Hebrews.
I've also explained that Papias is obviously not trustworthy, with his willing acceptance of fantastic absurd claims as I describer here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/apostolic-status-of-papias-and.html
Even Eusebius tells us he's a man of small intellect. Sure sure, even if he's gullible and unintelligent, this doesn't mean he's wrong. But he's still not trustworthy.
Theophilus of Antioch offers a citation to a single gospel and Irenaeus post dates Celsus, so how is this equivalanet to "widespread attributions at the time of Celsus"?
Victorinus seems to apply Papias' comments to our gospel of Mark
I don't know why that really matters. He may not have recognized that what he thought Papias was referring to (this gospel that sounds as described like sayings of Peter, not in order) in fact was not what he thought of as Mark.
You, in contrast, haven't cited a single comparable source who attributes the gospels to other disciples of Jesus, which is the issue under discussion in this context.
But then my arguments don't depend on the claim that the gospels were attributed to anyone other than Mt, Mk, Lk, or Jn.
You offer no documentation for your "average lifespan" claim relevant to the objections Steve and I discussed in the thread linked above.
The evidence is here:
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_on_jesus_2.htm#7
Carrier raises other interesting points at this same website. If supposedly these disciples and contemporaries of the disciples are out correcting false claims, why didn't they correct at least one gospel author with regards to Jesus date of death? You'd think they'd be able to keep this important date straight, but Mark has Jesus disciples prepare a Passover meal on the Day of Preparation, then consume that meal the following day at the Passover meal (which begins at 6 pm following the Day of Preparation). See Mk 14:12-16. However John has Jesus before Pilate on the Day of Preparation and out being crucified the same day, before Passover (Jn 19:14-15,31). There is no record that any eyewtinesses clarified this matter. When was Jesus born? Mt and Lk disagree (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html). What was the name of Jesus father, Joseph? Mt and Lk disagree. When did Mary Magdalene first see Jesus? Was it when she initially fled the tomb on her way to the disciples as per Mt, or did she arrive to tell the disciples and instead of indicating she met Jesus on the road on the way there as per Mt she says "They've taken my Lord and I don't know where they've laid him. They've stolen the body" as per Jn? Will you again be responding with vague reference to somewhere where you've answered these questions before, or can we get some specifics?
And it's not as if we have nothing but averages to go by. We have historical reports of some disciples of Jesus living into the late first century, as Richard Bauckham discusses in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), for example, and as I've discussed before with regard to the apostle John, for instance
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. Is this another one of those times where you take what you like from Papias and leave what you don't like? This is what I'm talking about. It is my claim that Papias is simply unreliable. So what value does his testimony have? We can see that when he says things we can verify, we find he's often wrong. When he says things we can't verify, and they are things which support your apologetic claims, then you want to conclude he's reliable. Why the double standard?
Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is set in the 130s, assumes that the gospels were so widespread as to be read by non-Christians
The problem is we don't know what form these gospels would have taken. There is no guarantee that the gospels they were seeing are the same gospels we see.
I've addressed your citation of Sabbati Sevi in previous discussions, and you keep ignoring much of what you've been told.
At the "hostile" thread you said "To repeat what I've said about Sabbati Sevi before..." and you proceeded to enumerate your arguments. In this thread I addressed every single argument you made and showed it to be irrelevant to the point I was gleaning from the example of Sevi. You then precisely repeated what I had just specifically addressed in this very thread.
But I'm not under any obligation to limit my comments to whatever issue you want to focus on.
This is a rather surprising admission. Basically you're saying the point I'm gleaning is irrelevant. You will reply to other points that I'm not making about Sevi and refute those, even though those have nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Why not conclude that the early Christians were like Nathan or like the followers who left Sevi, for example? Or why not conclude that they were different from the Sevi movement as a whole?
Well, we just don't know. That's my point. Who were the members of the Corinthian church when the first obtained the letter I Cor? What are their names? Were they trustworthy, smart, and willing to put claims to the test? How do we know that some members didn't test these things and leave the church as a result, finding the evidence wanting? The Bible itself says that a church can become corrupt (Rev 3:16). Acts 20:30 says "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." Scripture has examples of church leaders becoming corrupt (3 John 9-11). If someone at Corinth created I Cor in order to promote their own view of salvation in order to "draw away disciples" how would we ever know? We just can't know. You're banking on early Christians raising all these flags and sniffing out false attributions, but this is a perilous assumption. First, as I've stated repeatedly, and you've done nothing to overturn it, people have a staggering ability to believe what they want to believe. So even in the face of early Christians sniffing out error you can't assume this would change anything. And second, we have no idea if these people are corrupt and wicked, as Scripture authors warned us would happen amongst the very earliest Christians (i.e. the very people the Scripture authors are addressing).
Because of the data I've been citing from Richard Bauckham, Glenn Miller, and other sources, data you keep ignoring while you draw vague parallels to the Sabbati Sevi movement.
You mean the headings for which we have no evidence, hostile claims about the authorship attributions for which we have no evidence, labels for which we have no evidence, oral tradition for which we have no evidence, or the discussions of parents, grandparents, and rabbi's for which we have no evidence? Is that the "data" you have in mind?
Why are we supposed to believe that? Even the people who kept following Sabbati Sevi recognized their need to adjust their beliefs, and so what they believed changed significantly. They had to adjust to facts such as Sevi's apostasy.
Whatever adjustments they may have made, they continued to believe fundamental erroneous things about his miracles and healings which were directly contravened by his lead disciple and contemporaries of those people. Thus my point remains unchallenged. We have hard evidence that it is not true that disciples and contemporaries of the disciples would have prevented people from believing false claims about authorship attributions.
Because of the data I've been citing from Richard Bauckham, Glenn Miller, and other sources, data you keep ignoring while you draw vague parallels to the Sabbati Sevi movement.
Your data is speculative and imaginative. Again, point to these members of the Corinthian Church, or the Church at Galatia, Rome, whatever. Tell us there names and what they thought, and why we should trust them. How do we know these people aren't the very wolves in sheeps clothing that Scripture warns us about?
Why are we supposed to believe that? Even the people who kept following Sabbati Sevi recognized their need to adjust their beliefs, and so what they believed changed significantly. They had to adjust to facts such as Sevi's apostasy.
Christians have likewise been adjusting their beliefs to conform to reality for centuries. The earth is the center of the solar system. Jesus will come again soon. The earth is old. The earth is flat. Noah's flood was worldwide. God goes from being in the mountains, to the sky, and finally to another dimension. Despite any adjustments Sevi's followers may have made, they continued to believe fundamental erroneous things despite explicit and direct evidence to the contrary.
You keep repeating objections we've already addressed without attempting to interact with what we wrote in response previously.
Are you referring to this link here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/significance-of-eyewitness-testimony.html
where you put forward your gross straw man characterizations of the skeptical position as if it entails that gullible people would never consider evidence? And when I asked you to show us where Loftus had argued in that way you resolutely refused to answer, time and time and time and time again, and then finally appealed to something John didn't write until after your gross straw man characterization? Is this the thread where I need to "interact" with what you wrote previously?
What I'm saying now (that Benny Hinn's followers are 'concerned' about evidence as well) is the same point I made in that thread over and over again, trying to get you to stop characterizing our position as if it was a denial of that point. By pointing to incidences where some of the ancient Christians appealed to evidence you had redefined a "superstitious and gullible person" as a person that never considers evidence. And since everyone considers evidence at some level, there is no such thing as a superstitious and gullible person. And therefore John Loftus can't point to any superstitious and gullible people in antiquity, and so apparently in your mind this means his examples of superstitious and gullible behavior are irrelevant. Are you here again proceeding with this misrepresnation and denying that Benny Hinn's followers are also concerned about evidence, or are you again very vaguely appealing to a link with lots of comments and asserting that some sort of refutation of my point is contained within it if I'd only look hard enough? If so, where is this supposed refutation? Show me what you said in that link, and how it is a refutation of what I have here.
The followers of Sevi didn't "press on as normal".
In terms of some of their false beliefs about him they did, despite the fact that these beliefs were directly contradicted by Sevi's lead disciple and others.
Jon Curry wrote:
ReplyDelete"My arguments do not depend on 1 Clement being spurious, so this claim is false."
If First Clement and other relevant sources use documents before the time when you claim those documents came into existence, as they do, then your argument does depend on whether sources like First Clement are authentic. And given your failure to interact with the passages I've cited within the relevant documents, I doubt that whether the documents are authentic is the only issue you've been ignorant about.
You write:
"But I didn't say that my unwillingness to consult that book refutes your citation of it."
You wouldn't have to in order for it to be relevant for me to say that you haven't refuted what I argued.
You write:
"Don't you know what Philippians is about? Don't you know the major themes?"
The issue was how you were reading Paul, not what I consider to be its "major themes". Knowing the major themes of Philippians isn't enough to tell me which passages led you to your conclusion. You referred to irony, the author's knowing "too much" about Paul, etc., and I wanted more detail, not just your initial vague assertions.
You write:
"Now you're back to nose count arguments, which when I pointed out the absurdity of this argument before you basically denied that you had really made it. But you're making it again."
How is citing scholarly views equivalent to a "nose count"? It isn't. As I've told you before, I'm citing the scholarly consensus in this context for its diversity, not for a "nose count". You've repeatedly made an issue of how supposedly only inerrantists agree with me on a particular subject, how "most critical scholars" supposedly agree with you about something, etc. Were you appealing to a "nose count" as you describe above?
You write:
"When I point out that Paul is battling forgeries, you need a citation. I offered you one, but could have offered several, since this is all over the Pauline corpus."
A term like "battling forgeries" needs to be further defined. You've sometimes referred to a "cottage industry" of forgeries, and you haven't offered a further explanation when asked for one. Including marks of authentication within a document was common practice, even if there was no knowledge of an attempt at forgery in a particular case. People often take precautions against forgery, as we do today with signatures and other methods, even when no forgery is expected to occur or is suspected of having occurred already.
You write:
"And I've already explained that it is not clear that Papias is referring to the canonical gospels. You responded with your 'argument' that Papias' description of the book of Mark as 'not in order' aptly describes a book like Mark that starts at the beginning of Jesus ministry and follows it through until it culiminates and Jesus death and resurrection, because there just may be some chronological switcheroo in there even though we're given no indication of that within the text. So why would Papias describe this text as 'not in order'? Who knows, even though that description would make perfect sense of a text like the Kerygmata Petrou."
You're distorting the issues and ignoring much of what I said. The fact that the beginning and ending of Mark's gospel are in chronological order isn't of much significance. The same is true of every other gospel. Every gospel covers a large number of events between the beginning and the end. To act as if the large majority of the documents' contents are insignificant in making a judgment about chronological order, as long as the beginning and ending are in order, is ridiculous. People can perceive the gospel of Mark as out of order by comparing it with another gospel or by means of some other source of chronology.
John's gospel has a more developed chronology than Mark's. As I've discussed in the past, Papias seems to have been a disciple of John, and there are reflections of John's gospel in his writings. Given his relationship with John and John's prominence in the church of the late first century, Papias would have even more reason, aside from the more detailed chronology, to hold an elevated view of the gospel of John. As Richard Bauckham discusses in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 230-235 and elsewhere, Mark was being judged against that gospel and against the historiographic standards of that day.
Your suggestion that canonical Mark must not be what Papias was referring to, because the document is referred to as being out of order, doesn't make sense. Multiple sources who had access to Papias' writings interpreted him as referring to canonical Mark, and his comments are similar to comments other sources made about canonical Mark. No other document is as consistent with what Papias describes.
You write:
"His description of Matthew doesn't match our Matthew, though it does match the Gospel to the Hebrews."
I wasn't citing Papias for Matthew. I had Mark and John in mind.
You write:
"Even Eusebius tells us he's a man of small intellect. Sure sure, even if he's gullible and unintelligent, this doesn't mean he's wrong. But he's still not trustworthy."
Eusebius considered Papias trustworthy on some issues, as do modern scholars, but dismissed him as untrustworthy in the context of some views he (Eusebius) disagreed with, particularly Papias' premillennialism. Even if Papias was wrong on every issue Eusebius thought he was wrong about, his report about the gospel of Mark can't be dismissed on the same grounds. We have to make case-by-case judgments (as with Josephus, Tacitus, and other sources), and the reasons you've given for dismissing what he reported about Mark are insufficient.
You write:
"Theophilus of Antioch offers a citation to a single gospel"
Which makes him relevant to the issue I was addressing.
You write:
"Irenaeus post dates Celsus, so how is this equivalanet to 'widespread attributions at the time of Celsus'?"
You're distorting what I said. I used the phrase "around the same time", not "at the time" in the sense you're suggesting. If Irenaeus wrote a few years after Celsus, and other sources writing shortly after Celsus held the same view of gospel authorship, it's highly unlikely that the view became popular just after Celsus wrote. If there had been widespread anonymity or attribution to other authors prior to Irenaeus, then we wouldn't expect the sort of widespread agreement that we see from sources predating Irenaeus, around the time of Irenaeus, and onward. If you're going to suggest that the traditional authorship attributions still weren't widespread around the year 180, then you need to explain why sources living around that time mention no such authorship disputes, why other names aren't found in the manuscript record, why the relevant heretical and non-Christian sources don't make an issue of it, etc. If multiple generations of Christians lived and died without widespread agreement about the authorship attributions, then why don't we see the sort of evidence of such disagreements that existed with disputed documents like Hebrews and Revelation?
You still aren't giving us any evidence that the gospels were attributed to other disciples of Jesus. You're ignoring some of the relevant sources, but even if I had only cited the few sources you've interacted with, those few would be more than you've cited in support of the concept that the gospels were attributed to other disciples.
You write:
"He may not have recognized that what he thought Papias was referring to (this gospel that sounds as described like sayings of Peter, not in order) in fact was not what he thought of as Mark."
Saying that people "might" have misread Papias isn't enough. What they cite from Papias is consistent with canonical Mark, multiple people who had access to Papias' writings and canonical Mark thought he was referring to canonical Mark, and no other document fulfills what Papias described as well as canonical Mark does. Mark can plausibly be dated to the first century, it has many indications of Petrine influence (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/marks-gospel-of-peter.html), other sources describe its origins in a manner similar to how Papias does, it had the sort of widespread acceptance in the early church that a document handed down as Papias describes would be expected to have, etc.
You write:
"But then my arguments don't depend on the claim that the gospels were attributed to anyone other than Mt, Mk, Lk, or Jn."
Apparently, you forgot the context of this portion of the discussion. I was addressing your suggestion that Celsus had authors other than the traditional ones in mind when he referred to the gospels as authored by the disciples of Jesus. Your argument in that context does depend on the gospels' being attributed to other disciples.
You write:
"Carrier raises other interesting points at this same website....Will you again be responding with vague reference to somewhere where you've answered these questions before, or can we get some specifics?"
Given how much of our material you've ignored, you're not in a position to act as though it would be unreasonable for us to not answer your questions. I doubt that you've made much of an effort to research the issues you asked about. When I addressed your claims about Biblical errors in our discussions on Greg Krehbiel's board, you kept moving on to other alleged errors after the previous ones were addressed, without much of an effort to interact with what I had written. I don't have the time or desire for a repeat of that process.
You write:
"We have other historical reports of John dying early along with James."
As usual, you offer no documentation. I've cited data from many sources of the earliest centuries for John's long lifespan (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/mary-and-john-as-examples-of-sources.html), including sources who were in contact with John's disciples and the early Johannine churches. You've offered nothing comparable, and you can't.
You write:
"So it's kind of hard to say. See my above link on the discussion of Papias."
You left that thread without interacting with my last response.
Are you claiming that you documented references to an early death of John in that previous discussion? If so, you're mistaken. If you're referring to the passage in Philip of Side, Philip doesn't claim that Papias refers to James and John as dying at the same time. To place such a speculative reading of Philip of Side against the large amount of data to the contrary, which I discussed in the other thread I linked to above, then claim that "it's kind of hard to say" which position is more credible, is absurd. George the Sinner cites what apparently is the same passage in Papias, and he places John's death near the end of the first century (http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#george).
You write:
"When he says things we can't verify, and they are things which support your apologetic claims, then you want to conclude he's reliable. Why the double standard?"
You'll need to support that assertion with some evidence. I've explained why I accept Papias' testimony on issues like the origins of Mark's gospel, and the reason has never been that what he says "supports my apologetic claims".
You write:
"The problem is we don't know what form these gospels would have taken. There is no guarantee that the gospels they were seeing are the same gospels we see."
The issue is probability, not a "guarantee". Have you even read Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho? Would you tell us what significant differences exist between the gospels Justin discusses and our gospels? And if significantly different gospels were circulating as late as the 130s and perhaps beyond, then where do we see those gospels reflected in the historical record thereafter? How were so many people across the world persuaded to stop using the previous gospels and replace them with others? You don't seem to give much thought to the ridiculous scenarios you propose.
You write:
"Well, we just don't know. That's my point. Who were the members of the Corinthian church when the first obtained the letter I Cor? What are their names? Were they trustworthy, smart, and willing to put claims to the test? How do we know that some members didn't test these things and leave the church as a result, finding the evidence wanting?"
I've repeatedly addressed the evidence we have for the early Christians' concern for evidence. I've cited sources, such as Glenn Miller and Richard Bauckham, who discuss the issue in depth. I've explained why your proposed scenarios, in which the early Christians wouldn't be suspicious of alleged Pauline documents that didn't arise until more than sixty years after Paul's death, are unlikely. I've given examples of how even minor disputes over authorship issues are reflected in the historical record, how the early Christians themselves showed interest in internal evidence and the possibility of forgery, etc. We can make probability judgments from such data, as we do with other authorship attributions in the historical record. Unlike your ridiculous approach toward the New Testament, we don't assume that we need to know the names of the earliest people who received the Annals of Tacitus, that we need a "guarantee" that our text of the Annals is the same as the original, etc.
You write:
"Again, point to these members of the Corinthian Church, or the Church at Galatia, Rome, whatever. Tell us there names and what they thought, and why we should trust them. How do we know these people aren't the very wolves in sheeps clothing that Scripture warns us about?"
I've already given you examples of how such sources are evaluated, such as Polycarp. On an issue like whether Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, which was universally agreed upon among the extant ancient sources, a scenario in which all of those sources are viewed as "wolves in sheep's clothing" not only is unlikely, but would undermine the reasoning for accepting a passage like Acts 20:29 to begin with. Why would somebody accept the testimony for Acts, then turn around and conclude that all of the testimony for 1 Corinthians comes from false teachers who are unreliable on the subject? The same documents that warn of false teachers also give us standards by which to judge which teachers are false. We can reach probability judgments about whether a given source met the relevant standards. And a source doesn't have to qualify as a true teacher by Biblical standards in order to be a credible witness to something like whether Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. That's why I've referred to the significance of hostile corroboration in a recent thread, for example. You've repeatedly left our past discussions in which I've addressed issues like these, and you keep repeating questions that have been answered.
You write:
"Are you referring to this link here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/significance-of-eyewitness-testimony.html where you put forward your gross straw man characterizations of the skeptical position as if it entails that gullible people would never consider evidence? And when I asked you to show us where Loftus had argued in that way you resolutely refused to answer, time and time and time and time again, and then finally appealed to something John didn't write until after your gross straw man characterization? Is this the thread where I need to 'interact' with what you wrote previously?"
You're misrepresenting what occurred in that thread, as I explain there.