Celucien Joseph has been engaged in a conversation with one Mr. Cameron Reily (here, here, and here), who from what I can gather is a Christ Myther. Now how Celucien had the patience to deal with an honest-to-God Christ Myther is beyond me since once I hear that someone doubts or denies that Jesus existed at all, I conclude they’re not worth talking to. But he engaged this gentleman nonetheless and did a great job at that. But Mr. Reily shows himself to be woefully out of touch with reality when he makes sweeping generalizations about what “all scholars” or “no scholar” believes, and his understanding of the Synoptic Problem is frustratingly simplistic. It’s almost as if he’s never heard an alternative to the Two Source Hypothesis and I’m not quite sure that he understands even that all that well. But I just wanted to highlight Celucien’s labor and thank him for dealing with the folks that no one else will deal with. Well done my friend, well done.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
Nick,
What is it that leads you to classify Cameron Reilly as a “Christ Myther”? I saw him as commenting on the quality of our sources rather than taking a position of the existence of Jesus.
Vinny: This comment which can be seen in the body of the third post linked above:
Aren’t there many respectable scholars, (e.g., Bart Ehrman), who would affirm the existence of an historical Jesus while still maintaining that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?
Vinny: Yes.
You should never, ever say “no scholars” or “all scholars” believe something. Then all it takes is one scholar to show you are wrong. I could fairly confidently say, “9 out of 10 historical Jesus scholars believe he existed.” I couldn’t say, “all historical Jesus scholars believe he existed,” because of Bob Price. “All” is just a dangerous word to use in debate. For instance, who would say, “All evangelicals hold to the Chicago Statement.” The only way that could be said would be if they had priorly defined evangelical as someone who holds to the Chicago Statement, but that only begs the question. I’m evangelical and I don’t hold to the Chicago Statement, so I prove the argument wrong. In the end, list scholars and arguments, but the appeal to authority is only effective if we never use “all scholars” or “no scholars.”
As for the actual posts, I think Celucien did a wonderful job and was very patient and respecting toward Reilly. There’s a difference between being critical and being skeptical and I think the discussion shows this well.
I was also glad to see Birger Gerhardsson mentioned. I think he is woefully underappreciated due to gross misrepresentations of his work by Morton Smith and others. I’m thankful that Bauckham’s recent work has caused some to reconsider Gerhardsson’s work from years ago.
I also think Celucien’s patience is a virtue in this situation. It’s obvious that there are many like Reilly online. He has clearly done some research (probably also done online), but his arguments reflect a slanted type of scholarship that doesn’t accurately represent the data. His comments on Josephus and Papias are good examples of this point.
He knows that Josephus has been tampered, but he appears ignorant of the historical reference outside of the TF. He also appears ignorant of the many, non-Christian reconstructions of the passage which still agree with Celucien’s point. It’s not a complete insertion into the text, but has a historical core that was later edited…possibly by Christians.
He does something else that’s very common in regards to Papias. He takes statements that Eusebius is using to refer to Papias’ chiliasm and applies them to Papias’ work on the whole. He implies that Eusebius writes off Papias as of little intelligence, when the context clearly shows that his comment is in regards to his misunderstanding the apostolic teaching concerning the eschaton (since Eusebius has 4th century views that differ drastically from the early church in this regard). The truth is that Eusebius refers to him as a source for the history of gospel transmission and authorship in other places, so obviously considers his historical knowledge to be somewhat valuable.
Ranger: Exactly (on all counts)! I had actually written a paper on the TF a couple of years ago in response to a dialogue I had with a hyper-skeptic but unfortunately it was lost when my last computer crashed.
Allow me to defend myself by correcting some of your accusations.
I don’t believe I’ve said “all” or “no” scholars at all. What I have said is “the majority of scholars”. Quite different.
My original point to Celucien, which he has still not been able to argue with, is that we are not in possession of a single eyewitness or contemporary account of the life or deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.
The NT gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts, according to the majority of scholars on the subject, even the believers. We don’t even have hard evidence as to who wrote them. They are anonymously written accounts dated (by most scholars) as written at least several decades if not more after the supposed events occurred.
The most that scholars can say is that they think the authors of the NT gospels might have taken their accounts from eyewitnesses, but that is pure speculation, there is no evidence to support that theory.
It amuses me when Christians launch into ad hominem attacks when they fail to provide contrary evidence. It’s the lowest form of debate.
Thanks gentlemen for your kind words.
Ranger,
Your points are well taken. I hope NT scholars would go back to Gerhardsson’s original argument on the (oral and written) transmission of the Gospels (Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity : With Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, and The Reliability of Gospel Tradition)
Bauckham is a brilliant scholar/historian. Interestingly , he does not stress oral tradition as Gerhardsson did , rather suggesting that eyewitness testimony should the principal model of studying our Gospels. Moreover, he picks up where Gerhardsson and Byrskog left, and supplements their work.
Just imagine if somebody would consider writing a dsertation combining the fine research of Gerhardsson, Byrskog, and more recently Bauckham.
Just some thoughts!
Lou
Cameron: As I said in my post, your doubt that Jesus even existed renders you unfit for me to engage in such matters. Celucien did a fine job in providing answers to your objections and you have chosen to stick your head in the sand and act as if he hasn’t. That’s your right, far be it from me to stop you from doing so.
I will however address your charges related to my assessment in this post.
(1) You said:
Here I admit to having missed the “almost” as my eyes focused on the capitalized “NO.” But were this the only statement I’d retract what I said. Unfortunately for you, it isn’t the only such statement. You also said:
What is the functional difference between “every” and “all”? And it doesn’t stop there. You also said:
How exactly am I supposed to understand a claim about the “entire community of biblical historians” of which you clearly do not believe even “one” dissents from your position? I trust that this should be enough to vindicate my original claim regarding your appeal to “all” and “no” scholars.
(2) If you could point out the ad hominem attacks I’d greatly appreciate it. Surely my assessment of your understanding of the Synoptic Problem is not ad hominem.
(2.1) At one point you said that “scholars agree that Luke is directly copied word-for-word from Mark and the Q source.” Nobody who has read both Gospels would ever assert such. At other times you qualified that by saying “almost” word for word, perhaps realizing your error.
(2.2) You seem to take Markan Priority as axiomatic and in that you have only espoused the Two Source Hypothesis (why not the Four Source Hypothesis or the Farrer Hypothesis?). In fact there are any number of neo-Griesbachians (e.g., David Alan Black) who are fully prepared to offer a defense of Matthean priority. There are also scholars (e.g., Daniel Wallace) who are fully prepared to affirm Markan priority but argue for Matthew as an eyewitness who made use of Mark because he already knew Mark’s facts were accurate.
(3) I also can’t imagine that my calling you a “Christ Myther” could be taken as ad hominem given your statements to that effect. You said:
And
So again, I’d ask for a demonstration of this alleged ad hominem attack. Also, since I’ve not debated you I fail to see how it could be the “lowest form of debate.” And let me just warn you; I won’t allow you to flood my comments with the same things you’ve flooded Celucien’s with. If you choose to respond, please respond by pointing out where and how I was wrong in my assessment. Thanks.
Cameron,
Let me begin by apologizing if we’ve offended you. We, too, are interested in discussion that is free of ad hominem attacks. If you feel that we attacked your character or appealed to emotion in the discussion thus far, then I apologize for however I contributed to that feeling. My comments on “all” and “no” scholars were in regards to this type of argumentation in general, so please do not take my comments about not using “all” or “no” as a personal attack. I do feel that your comments thus far show that you are not well read in some of the topics you mention, and that this type of argumentation is common online. Forgive me if I’m incorrect, but I was referring specifically to your comments on Papias and Josephus (two topics that I have spent much time personally studying) and commenting on how ignorance of these two topics has spread considerably with the advent of the internet, since it allows for quick distribution of faulty and inaccurate information. It obviously serves a ton of useful purposes as well, but in this regard it’s not that useful.
You said, “My original point to Celucien, which he has still not been able to argue with, we are not in possession of a single eyewitness or contemporary account of the life or deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.”
Lou did address this, and made an argument based on contemporary scholarship. He made the case that whereas the authors may not have been eyewitnesses (we don’t know), that they at least contain eyewitness testimony from those who were eyewitnesses. You may not agree with his argument, but he made it and it is well reasoned.
The core testimony of Mark may directly come from Peter, or was shared by eyewitnesses at the feasts, or written into some form of document that has been destroyed such as Crossan’s passion narrative, or the pre-Matthean and pre-Lucan sources. We may find this in the Aramaic that lies underneath the Greek text. The “majority” of scholars agree that there is a core of teaching that derives directly from Jesus of Nazareth, and whether by written, oral or some other method, originated with eyewitnesses. That’s why scholars assess each event and attempt to reconstruct just how accurate the account is.
“The most that scholars can say is that they think the authors of the NT gospels might have taken their accounts from eyewitnesses, but that is pure speculation, there is no evidence to support that theory.”
I’d be interested to know what you consider “evidence” in this regard, because it’s not clear. Since multiple attestation within the gospels and tradition from someone who claims to have known apostles and their disciples is not enough (Papias), what evidence do you have in mind that would meet this criteria, and how applicable is your criteria for working with 1st century historical evaluations?
What is your understanding of the authorship of the gospels? Do you have an argument as to who wrote them, or do you hold that we simply don’t have enough evidence to make an argument?
Personally, I’ve been influenced greatly by Martin Hengel’s “The Four Gospels and One Gospel of Jesus Christ.” He’s one of the world’s pre-eminent scholars on earliest Christian history and a professor at the University of Tubingen. You also might be interested in his work, “Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity.” Another scholar whom you might be interested in would be Larry Hurtado.
As I said in my post, your doubt that Jesus even existed renders you unfit for me to engage in such matters.
That looks ad hominem to me.
Ranger: I’d second Hengel and Hurtado!
Vinny: How is that ad hominem? I’m not talking about him as a way to discredit his argument. I’m saying that his position isn’t even worth my time. We haven’t (nor will we) get to the stage where ad hominem comes into play.
Vinny,
I’m still not sure that it technically qualifies as an ad hom attack, but it’s pretty close for sure.
Cameron,
I’d also like to ask what support you have for your assertions. You said that your argument is that the NT gospels contain no eyewitness accounts, and that the Christian faith is built on a house of straw, but how do you support the assertions (particularly the first one)? What evidence is there for your claim? Without support, it’s not really an argument at all per se.
Ranger: It doesn’t qualify because we’re not debating anything. Ad hominem looks like this:
Such and such claims this and that.
Such and such is a jerk face.
Therefore this and that is false.
ALL historical Jesus scholars believe he existed. Otherwise they are only Jesus ‘scholars’ or Jesus mythers… They’re not on the same planet. Bla bla bla I can’t hear any different! Don’t hit me. :-)
I wish Bush hadn’t existed. Maybe he didn’t. I never saw him and I don’t know anyone who did. I wonder if Hitler existed… Maybe even I don’t even exist. You’ve never seen me. ;-)
Bush was the speaker at the Plano Senior Hich School graduation ceremony, where I attended. He was our governor at the time.
Since you are searching for the historical Bush…
Let me share with you what I first received. Bush appeared at the ceremony according to the bulletin, he arrived, he spoke and he left according to the bulletin. He appeared to me, my mom, my sister, my future wife and over 500 brothers at one time, many of whom are still alive though some have fallen asleep, haha.
Of course this tradition is much further removed from the actual events than the traditions that Paul received, but who’s counting?
Nick,
By your point system above:
1. Apology accepted.
1a. I’m correct in stating that “every biblical scholar already knows – that there isn’t a single eyewitness or contemporary (eg in his lifetime) account of Jesus.”
Celucien didn’t provide any evidence to the contrary. The best he came up with was that a) certain scholars believe the authors of the NT gospels might have had faithfully transcribed what they heard from eyewitnesses, but there is no evidence to support this, it is purely speculation, not history.
2. Your ad hominem attack was that I am “woefully out of touch with reality” – you are attacking my general mental state, not debating the facts of my argument.
2.1 and 2.2 The Two-Source hypothesis is generally accepted by most scholars. Every theory has marginal views, but this is the generally accepted theory. I’ve had this confirmed by several biblical scholars, believers and non-believers alike.
3. I have no problem with being called a “Christ Myther”, although I’m not stating that it is a myth, just that without substantive evidence to support the theory that he *did* exist, the myth theory is equally plausible.
And I have no intention to ‘flood your comments’, nor have I flooded Celucien’s. I’ve responded as briefly to his points as possible, certainly I’ve been far more economical with my points that he has.
You may not have debated me, but you did choose to criticize my mental state on your blog, and I appreciate the right of reply.
Ranger,
You say ‘they at least contain eyewitness testimony from those who were eyewitnesses’. But where, I ask again, is the evidence for this? It is pure speculation. And that isn’t good history.
You say ‘the core testimony of Mark may directly come from Peter’ – and it might just as well come from his imagination. There is no evidence to verify either claim. Human history is full of mythologies about magic men and messiahs and the Christ story has as little supporting data as the rest of them.
You ask what I would consider ‘evidence’. It’s really simple – a credible eyewitness account or a credible contemporary account would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Jesus story, none of those exist. At best we have second or third hand accounts and such accounts, especially when written in the first century in the Middle East, just cannot be accepted as historically accurate by any sensible person.
I don’t have a theory on who wrote the gospels. Neither does it matter to me if Jesus existed or not. I am obviously an atheist, so even if there was rock hard proof that Jesus existed, I would still require evidence that God exists before it would matter much to me.
All I’m doing is pointing out what I believe to be fact and well accepted by most biblical historians – that we do not have a single credible eyewitness account or a single contemporary account of Jesus’ life and deeds.
Ranger
You ask what “support you have for your assertions that..the NT gospels contain no eyewitness accounts, and that the Christian faith is built on a house of straw”.
Simply this:
It is my understanding (and I’m happy to proven wrong) that the majority of biblical scholars / historians working in this field today agree with Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis.
Most also agree that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness but was passing on stories he heard (perhaps from eyewitnesses, but we have no evidence to support that speculation, even Papais says “For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.”).
The attribution of Mark to “Mark” was given by Papias somewhere around 150CE.
We know this because Eusebius, writing around 330CE, tells us so.
So…
A guy living in 330CE tells us that a guy who lived 180 years earlier was told by someone that another guy (Mark) knew a guy (Peter) who witnessed the miracle of another guy (Jesus).
And the entire Christian faith is built on the accuracy of the words and deeds of Jesus.
That, sir, is a house of straw.
Cameron,
1. “every biblical scholar already knows – that there isn’t a single eyewitness or contemporary (eg in his lifetime) account of Jesus”
In regards to “every scholar,” the case has been made by plenty of contemporary scholars (Bauckham, Byrskorg, Bock, Blomberg, Bird…and that’s only some of the B’s) that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony…so, what exactly are you asking about? Do you mean accounts that were handwritten by the eyewitnesses themselves? If so, then you’re right that nobody would disagree…but the same could be said about 99.99% of well-known, historical individuals up until the 5th century A.D. when biography became more popular.
Early texts containing earlier sources, and probably tracing to eyewitness accounts are as good as you are going to get in ancient history. If that’s your criteria for claiming that someone existed, then it’s not very workable in the field of historical studies.
2. “The Two-Source hypothesis is generally accepted by most scholars. Every theory has marginal views, but this is the generally accepted theory.”
I think that 30-50 years ago you could make this statement with the utmost confidence. Since steph is working on a Ph.D. on this topic, I’ll let her detail this out if she wants (although she doesn’t like conflict). I would say that among New Testament scholars it’s probably the predominant view still, since it’s still in the standard introduction textbooks, which is as far as many delve into the topic.
Among those who specialize particularly in this topic it’s still highly debatable, as steph could share. It’s not simply the standard theory with a few other ‘marginal’ theories that nobody respects. You should read the free material by Mark Goodacre, a religion professor at Duke and Q-skeptic, at his New Testament Gateway site suggesting some reasons to question the theory.
When doing history you make the most of what you have. In the case of Jesus, there is more information than most historical figures. Is it all accurate? By no means, but that doesn’t mean it’s all made up either.
I’m sorry that you have been offended, but those who question the existence of the historical Jesus completely seem out of touch to those of us who study in this field. I admit that it’s hard to take their arguments seriously because they seem so fringe that as steph said, “they’re not on the same planet.” In the case of some, like Robert Price (who I know you interviewed), his anti-Christian rhetoric is so strong that it’s hard to take his arguments seriously. He also simply doesn’t publish as an academic, but writes most of his work through Prometheus or American Atheist Press in order to cater to his audience and not to be taken seriously among academic peers.
If mythers want to be taken seriously, then stop pandering to your audience and start publishing your arguments for peer review. No, the reviews won’t be as pretty as those in Skeptic magazine, but maybe they’ll be able to get a seat at the table.
Cameron,
You say, “Most also agree that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness but was passing on stories he heard (perhaps from eyewitnesses, but we have no evidence to support that speculation, even Papais says “For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.”).”
And also, “The attribution of Mark to “Mark” was given by Papias somewhere around 150CE.”
You’re making my point from earlier. Papias, knew Ariston and John the elder (possibly the apostle), who were both disciples and eyewitnesses, and was a contemporary of Polycarp (70-155 CE). Most scholars on the early church date him (65-135 CE), based on this data, his kinship to Iranaeus (late 2nd century), the references in Iranaeus’ work to Papias’ work, geography, etc. and there is not evidence otherwise.
Eusebius is quoting directly from a text written by Papias, whom he didn’t much like and would have no reason to distort. Papias, writing around 110-120 says about John the Elder:
“And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him.”
So Papias, who knew John the elder and other eyewitnesses (read the rest of his fragments if you’re interested), in 110 or 120, is sharing about an earlier time when John discussed the eyewitness account contained in Mark’s gospel.
Cameron,
Thanks for the discussion. I’ll let you have the last word as I’m simply too busy to continue today. Once again, I’m sorry if you were offended, and apologize for however I contributed to your feeling that way.
Ranger: I bet they fell asleep while he spoke… actually I don’t believe you … I don’t believe in you. Ranger doesn’t exist. Somebody has invented him. ;-)
Ranger,
1. Yes, by eyewitness account, I mean an account written by an eyewitness. Secondhand testimony is not the equivalent of an eyewitness account. I’m well aware that there aren’t many eyewitness accounts of persons who lived around that time, but that’s doesn’t add credibility to the historicity of Jesus.
2. You say “In the case of Jesus, there is more information than most historical figures.” None of that information, though, comes directly from eyewitnesses. It is at BEST second hand, but we have no way of testing the veracity of it.
I’m not offended at all. But I find it amusing when Christians dismiss people who question the existence of Jesus as not to be taken seriously and yet cannot provide a single eyewitness account of his life.
Ranger again… You’re right, I don’t like conflict and I definitely don’t bother arguing with Jesus mythers or fundamentalist Christians. They generally have not studied the literature and are full of pointless rhetoric. As for the two source hypothesis, the majority of NT scholars who don’t actually write on the Synoptic Problem are probably more ameniable to a chaotic idea, recognising the complexity of historical reality. They’re realists. I know this from conferences and other communication. Their careers don’t depend on the perpetuation of the “Q” myth. So the “majority of NT scholars” don’t actually believe in “Q”. Which is good for me… :-)
And for general information, I am not a Christian, never have been and never will be, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus existed. I suggest that Jesus mythers read Maurice Casey’s new book on Jesus when it is released next year. Coincidentally this historian is not a believer either. But unlike me, he actually bothers to deal with the Jesus mythers.
Steph: Good point on ALL “historical Jesus scholars” believing he existed! ;-) Oh, and I so can’t wait to read your thesis.
Ranger: At least you tried.
Cameron: You have demonstarted my point repeatedly in your outright dimissal of the arguments presented by Celucien and now Ranger, and also by your understanding of what scholars believe. My sayinf that you’re out of touch with reality isn’t a comment about your mental state, it’s simply another way of me saying that you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Steph: I’m sorry that you find my questions “pointless rhetoric”. It’s an easy way of dismissing genuine questions without providing any evidence though, I guess.
Nick: My “outright dismissal” is based on simple parameters. I’ve asked for evidence that the NT gospels were either a) written by eyewitnesses or b) based on accounts of actual eyewitnesses. Once again, you’ve glibly dismissed my genuine questions with ad hominem attacks, without bothering to provide answers to my genuine questions or evidence to refute my statement that there *is* no evidence to support your position.
Cameron: Once again, this is not ad hominem. You and I are not engaged in any kind of debate/argument. I’m not dismissing your arguments based on flaws in your character or any perceived problems with your circumstances. I’m not even willing to discuss your arguments with you let alone debate them. I have told you fro the beginning. And on that note your commenting privileges are suspended. Thanks for stopping by.
Hmm. If eyewitnesses are necessary proof of existence of previous people, the vast part of mankind never existed.
I knew the rest of you were figments of my imagination.
Some people are so rational they aren’t reasonable. Or something.
Chuck: Yeah, pretty much. If I had the patience to deal with people like this then I’d just play the “we can say all history is speculation” game. But why bother?
I wasn’t even aware I was addressing Cameron. I do however suspect that he is not very well read in the discipline. But you hear what you want I guess. I don’t have the time or the patience to write an essay for him. He’s quite right of course – all the eyewitnesses are dead. That’s why Henry VIII never existed either. The myth… Australia is a weird place. A bit like Texas :-)
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. But they probably contain eyewitness accounts. People wrote things down on wax tablets and the like. Note taking – a common practice (see Derrenbecker). Mark was not written “several decades” after the event. James Crossley spells out quite clearly why Mark was written within several years of the event. Detection of translated Aramaic sources within the gospels, combined with various other clues to historicity where stuff just wouldn’t have been made up like for example the reaction of Jesus’ family to his exoricising, go towards arguing that the evangelists had some reliable sources. Mythers would be advised to read some Maurice Casey and they can’t accuse him (or James) of confirming any deeds or words to support a Christian faith.
Steph wrote: “Mark was not written ‘several decades” after the event. James Crossley spells out quite clearly why Mark was written within several years of the event.”
I am always fascinated by the way that conservative Christians will embrace the theory they like best as established fact. Crossley suggested an argument for early dating that, as far as I can tell, has not found widespread acceptance even among evangelical scholars. It doesn’t change the fact that legitimate arguments for dating could probably be made anywhere between the death of Jesus in 33 A.D. and the first unambiguous references somewhere well into the second century.
As a skeptic, my sympathies are with Cameron in this argument although I do think that he has overstated his case. However I find assertions like “The Gospel As Eyewitness Testmony: Case Closed!” more hyperbolic than anything Cameron wrote. I did not personally find Bauckham particularly persuasive, but even if I did, I would not think that it could be claimed that he did anything more than suggest a mechanism by which the eyewitness testimony could have been preserved until the time the gospels were written. He didn’t establish that it actually happened and certainly didn’t close the case.
Vinny: You are aware that Steph is an agnostic, right? It seems like you think she’s a conservative Christian because she believes that James Crossley (another non-Christian) makes a persuasive case for an early dating of Mark’s Gospel. And I don’t know how legitimate second century dating arguments are.
And of course as a skeptic your presuppositions color your interpretation of the data, so no one would expect you to find Bauckham particularly persuasive. My question to you would be what would Bauckham or anyone else have to do to ‘establish’ the matter? In other words, what kind of evidence would you, as a skeptic, accept in order to believe that the Gospels were eyewitness testimony?
I did assume that Steph is a conservative Christian, but my problem is not that she finds Crossley persuasive. My problem is that she presents his dating of Mark as if it were an established fact, which strikes me as absurd. From what I could see on Crossley’s blog, it didn’t seem to me that even he would state the case as strongly as Steph did.
I am not sure that I would find many second century dating arguments for Mark particularly persuasive either although I haven’t examined them closely. I would say that the range of dates for the composition of Mark is bounded by the point at which we start finding unambiguous external references to the gospel. The fact that Clement of Rome doesn’t seem to demonstrate any familiarity with the gospel in 95 A.D. makes me think that there may be some reasonable arguments for late dating.
In order to establish that the gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, I think I would need to see unambiguous external confirmation of very early composition dates for the gospels. As long as we can’t be certain that they were written any earlier than thirty to sixty years after Jesus died, I don’t see how you ever offer anything more than speculation that the original disciples of Jesus actually exercised control over the transmission of the traditions. I don’t think it can be done with inclusio and Papias.
Vinny: I don’t know that I’d interpret Steph’s comment in quite that light. It seemed more that she simply believes Crossley makes a great case for early dating. And since she only says it in passing it’s hard to read too much into it. BTW, I’ve not really seen Crossley address Mark’s date on his blog. If you have particular posts in mind point me to them because I’d like to read them.
What would an “unambiguous external confirmation of very early composition dates for the gospels” look like exactly?
You are a generous soul Nick, but I think that a person who means “I think Crossley makes a good case for A” should say that rather than “Crossley has shown that A is so.”
The post I looked at was one in which Crossley responded to a couple of reviews of his book. The respectful manner in which he responded to counter arguments made me think that he didn’t see his work as answering the question once and for all.
As far as external confirmation goes, it would have been nice if Paul had referred to the gospels and their authors.
Vinny: Again, in stating that “Crossley spells out quite clearly…” it just seems that she believes his case to be compelling. It’s not as if she’s denying that there are other arguments out there, but it does seem that she doesn’t find them as persuasive as Crossley. In any event, thankfully Steph is alive and well and can tell us how she intended her statement. It’s not like we’re reading Mark who can’t clairfy what he meant. ;-)
I wonder though how you’d interpret Paul if he did make such references. I have a feeling that the skeptic in you would think that such references would be proof of the late date of Paul’s writing or perhaps later Christian additions, etc. I guess we’ll never know though.
Vinny Vinny Vinny… Oooooh I love being mistaken for a conservative Christian. Ha Ha Ha Ha… And did I say that the gospel was eyewitness testimony, case closed? I don’t think so – in fact I said the opposite, ‘the gospels are not…’. As for Bauckham, he’s a good conservative scholar but he failed imo with his effort in the Eyewitnesses. I never mentioned Bauckham and I didn’t like his book either. My conclusions are quite different from his. And I think Nick is spot on interpreting my blog comment and you are way off. But then Nick knows me better than you. :-)
Steph: I think Vinny had others in mind with the comments about Bauckham and eyewitness testimony. I think his objection with you was just the date of Mark’s Gospel.
This sort of loosely fits the topic, but my favorite Crossley line ever, “I may not be an evangelical, but at least I’m biblical.”
Steph,
It was Celucien Joseph who cited Bauckham and titled his blog post “The Gospel As Eyewitness Testmony: Case Closed!” I realize that my comment could be interpreted as attributing that position to you.
Nick,
It is true that I am skeptical of all things supernatural, but I do believe in freaky stuff that I cannot explain. If a theist were to present me with evidence of a well documented miracle, I think I would be able to say “That sure is a good one for your side. That’s some freaky stuff.” I would likely still believe that there is a natural explanation for the thing somewhere, but I don’t think that I would have any problem admitting that I didn’t have any idea what it might be.
So if the early composition of the gospels could be persuasively established, I don’t doubt that I would still be skeptical that the events actually took place as described, but I would acknowledge that it made your case stronger.
Vinny: Perhaps you might like to read Crossley’s Date of Mark. Apart from making a convincing (I think) case for an early date, it makes the late dating arguments fall on their face. And remember there is alot more than just supernatural miracles in the gospel of Mark and there is much evidence to suggest historicity … so I invite you to read both Maurice Casey’s book next year “the Life of the Historical Jesus” and of course my own thesis :-) which is more concerned with debunking “Q” and demonstrating probably Aramaic sources.
Steph,
Google Books actually let me read the section of Crossley’s book where he discusses the external arguments for the dating of Mark as well as some of the discussion of Mark 13. I found it very interesting but I think it really highlighted for me how speculative the whole business of dating is.
We can’t ‘prove’ anything but we can demonstrate that some things are more probable than others. (and I can debunk “Q” as the most highly improbable hypothesis ever made up! and demonstrate a far more plausible alernative. :-)
I don’t think reading extracts of James’ book is very fair. I strongly urge you to borrow the book and read it beginninig to end.
Steph,
Your thesis sounds awesome. I hope Kloppenborg takes not of it and responds.
Blocking me from commenting and responding to you is just lame. It’s not like I’m acting like a troll, Nick.
Thank you Ranger. He’s one of the main characters – probably the anti hero ;-) However I don’t think any of those in ivory Q towers will concede any fault. I hope he responds too!
I find it amusing that you have audacity to post an article criticising someone – whom then tries to defend their position – politely – then you block them from posting?!
I could understand if they were being rude or insulting, fair enough. But even if Cameron was completely and utterly incorrect in any of his assertions – blocking him only serves to make it look like you are unable to debate your position.
And before you ask, no I am not a friend of Cameron beyond following him on twitter, and no I have never met or even spoken to him.
I have no understanding of the arguments put forward by either side (which is unfortunate) so I would be useless in a debate either way, but I do understand that the debate was civil on all sides until YOU simply gave up the debate by blocking him.
<>
How is this surprising? We don’t have any evidence at all for the existence of the vast majority of individuals that have ever lived. We know people *in general* existed, but as for the lives and deeds of most of them, we just have no idea.
As for Jesus, there are documents that claim that he existed and chronicle his actions, so he’s already better off than 99.9999% of all humans, but you still need to analyze the data carefully. You don’t get a free ride because the historical record is so poor wrt most people.
Oh Dear, the comment just ate the quoted text. I was answering to Chuck’s comment, of course.
Unfortunately Steph, life is too short to read all the things that I would like to read.
Even if it is possible to demonstrate that some things are more probable than others, when the evidence is so sketchy and the unknowns are so great, it may be impossible to narrow the range of possibilities sufficiently to think that we actually know more than we did before.
Cameron: As you can see, I approved this comment of yours. I’ve told you from the onset that I have no interest in discussing the matters that you discussed with Celucien. You’ve already proven that you are not interested in answers so I won’t waste my time on that subject. If there is anything about my assessment that you would like to discuss further then fine, but I can’t imagine what that might be since I’ve backed up my claims with direct quotes from you.
Adrian: I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you (1) haven’t read the post carefully, and (2) haven’t read all of my comments in this thread. I say this because if you had done both then you’d be very aware that from the beginning I said that I don’t waste my time discussing something so clearly attested as the existence of Jesus with so-called Christ Mythers. I’ve said repeatedly that I am not engaged in any kind of debate with Cameron on the subject of the existence of Jesus or the Gospels as eyewitness testimony. I have told him that if he contnued trying to debate those things that he would no longer be allowed to comment. So it shouldn’t look like I’m unable to defend my position against his because I’m simply not interested in discussing the topic at all with him. So again, there was no debate for me to give up.
The only discussion between Cameron and me had to do with my depiction of his general state of knowledge about these matters. He took issue with my characterization of him and I showed from his own words how my characterization was correct. And as far as I can see, everything in that discussion has been civil.
Xan: I don’t know what was quoted but you’re right, most people go through life never being known by the world at large. Jesus is obviously not one of those people.
Nick: my point was that saying “If we asked for hard evidence about the existence of Jesus we’d need hard evidence for everyone and we’d not believe in the pretty much anybody’s existence” is not sound reasoning, because that’s *exactly* what happens. We don’t know anything about pretty much anybody in History.
Whether or not you are convinced by the existing data is a different topic, but you can’t magically transform a situation that requires agnosticism in something else just because you don’t like its logical conclusion.
Xan: If that’s your point then its ridiculous. One needn’t be agnostic about the existence of certain persons in history. But in the same way I have no interest in wasting my time on such discussions with Cameron, I have no interest in wasting it on a discussion with you.
Nick: I haven’t even said anything about the particular case of Jesus, just that the only rational position *a priori* is agnosticism, and that from there you can be convinced about the actual existence of someone by historical records. In your case you are convinced by the data, in Cameron’s case he’s not, I don’t see the big deal.
My only point is that you need a *process* to get there, you can’t say “Look, you can’t doubt of this, otherwise you’d doubt of too many things”, which is what Chuck seems to imply.
Xan: I see what you’re saying. I had to scroll back because I forgot that Chuck even commented on this post.
So by my understanding:
a) You are not/will not debate Cameron’s opinions because they are so obviously wrong.
b) You are happy to continue (all 18 posts after blocking Cameron) to continue discussing how wrong Cameron actually is… and how right you are.
If his opinion is so obviously ludicrous, it seems to me absolutely spiteful that you would post what can only be seen as a hateful comment about someone’s opinions – then cut them off from commenting, and then CONTINUE to discuss how ludicrous his thoughts are.
“Now how Celucien had the patience to deal with an honest-to-God Christ Myther is beyond me since once I hear that someone doubts or denies that Jesus existed at all, I conclude they’re not worth talking to.”
Perhaps you shouldn’t wonder how Celucien Joseph ‘deals with it’, but how you should learn to ‘deal with it’ better…
Adrian: You only need to to hit “submit comment” once. Thanks.
a) Correct. I will not waste time debating the existence of Jesus with a Christ Myther. I will also not engage in a discussion where I know the person is not genuinely interested in answers. And I know this to be the case because I read all of the discussion between Celucien and Cameron (btw, have you?)
b) I’m going to again assume that you haven’t read carefully. For the record, Cameron posted one comment after I ‘blocked’ him, and I approved it. You can see it above. Secondly, I’ve posted 8 comments since then (not 18), none of which discussed how wrong Cameron is and how right I am, except perhaps my comment to you, and that was only reiterating what I had already shown above by quoting Cameron (i.e., it had to do with his claims about all scholars and his state of knowledge concerning the Synoptic Problem).
I don’t want this to come off as rude, or somehow condescending, and I fully realize that it might be taken this way, so please, don’t take it like this because it’s not how I intend it, but, do you know what ‘spiteful’ means? If so then please tell me how my comments can be seen as ‘spiteful’ or ‘hateful’ even.
And could you also tell me why I’d want to deal with people who aren’t genuinely interested in meaningful dialogue? I have no problem carrying on meaningful conversations with any number of unbelievers (Steph and Vinny are two fine examples) but I won’t waste precious time with people who in the end are just going to dismiss any/everything I say out of hand. I have better things to do.
a) I don’t care if Cameron is wrong or right, or whether you are. No, I have not ready any of the other posts between Celucien and Cameron. I don’t follow these types of threads ever – I am not interested in debating which of either of your opinions is correct.
b) At the time there were no other posts by cameron visible. I did not intend to mean you posted 18 times – but there was a ‘discussion’ with other posters (~18 posts). The discussion on camerons ideas continued on after you had blocked him.
Sorry by spite I meant ‘belittle’ or ‘annoy’ someone… maybe i’ll go and look up the meaning of spiteful in a minute.
I had never heard the term ‘Christ Myther’ until today – it’s obviously used as a derogatory term – there is surely no debate there.
More so saying “…conclude they’re not worth talking to.”
Seriously. Come on. How could that NOT be taken as hurtful.
What I am trying to say is, if you REALLY don’t care or want to care what his opinions are (and you know what – that is a absolutely perfectly acceptable stance) – but don’t POST about someone in the tone you did and then not expect them to come back and continue to reiterate their point – then cut them off!
I am sure you’ll probably respond with ‘what tone’… but you have to *honestly* deep down admit when you posted, it was in an attempt to belittle or annoy Cameron.
That or perhaps you thought that Cameron would see the ‘lighter’ side of your post.
Adrian: Here’s the thing, my post was about the work my buddy Celucien did, it wasn’t intended to belittle Cameron or to annoy him, I honestly had no idea if he’d even see it. But Celucien spent a bit of time preparing these responses to Cameron and I wanted to point people to his work. In reading the exchange between the two I came to certain conclusions regarding Cameron, namely that he was a Christ Myther (which is descriptive, not derogatory, I’ll explain that later), and that he made some false claims regarding scholarship that I think evidence that he’s not as familiar with certain subjects as he should be to speak about them. As you can read in the comments, he took issue with my characterization of his arguments or perhaps him as a person. I then documented exactly what he said that led to my assessment. The case was closed on that.
You will notice that the majority of the discussion that followed didn’t have to do with Cameron at all. Most of it was me and Vinny disagreeing over something that Steph said with regard to the date of the Gospel according to Mark. Cameron and his views simply weren’t a part of it. He really didn’t enter the discussion again until his comment (which you couldn’t see at the time you originally read the thread) and your original comment.
As far as the term Christ Myther is concerned, there is a group of people that doubt the existence of Jesus. They call reference to Jesus the “Christ Myth” or the “Jesus Myth.” Some of the champions of this movement are G. A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and Acharya S. If you google any of their names I’m sure you’ll come across tons of information about the “Christ Myth.” To get you started here’s some websties: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth; The Christ Myth; The Jesus Puzzle.
As far as saying that such people are not worth talking to, I of course mean that they’re not worth talking to about Jesus. That should be clear from the context of the statement. I’m sure I could carry on a conversation about sports or movies with such folks with little to no problem. And as I’ve been saying, I have no problem with Cameron defending himself against my characterization of him in my post — he’s done that and I’ve responded — but I won’t be bothered to discuss the same topics with him that he discussed with Celucien. And having stated that from the beginning I have every right to cut him off for not respecting that I’m just not interested.
So in the end, no, I don’t have to “deep down admit” that I attempted to belittle or annoy Cameron because I didn’t. And while I appreciate the back and forth we’ve been having, I think we’ve reached the conclusion of this particular conversation. Thanks for stopping by and please feel free to comment on any other posts you find interesting.
Hmm ok, well I think I betrayed my own standard above and slipped into being condescending. I applogise.
I must also acknowledge that you did as you said reverse the ban later, so I commend you for that.
Since I don’t wish to hijack the thread anymore I think it’s time for me to move onto more interesting activities such as sleep.
Vinny: I’m disappointed that you are not prepared to read it but you are quite prepared to criticise the theory without knowing the arguments. It’s rich to criticise this unknown theory as speculation when what you are doing is speculating. Have fun reading the stuff you choose to have time for. I hope you don’t criticise my thesis before reading it. I’ve seen a biblioblogger who does this sort of thing. :-)
Steph: I did find that whole ordeal to be rather strange.
Gee. I’d forgotten I’d posted here.
Actually, what bugs me is not method, but the shifting ground of some people’s methods. You know the thing: “Jesus is a religious figure, therefore we have to be triple dog skeptical of anything resembling historical evidence for him. Never mind what we’d accept of a secular figure.”
Anyway, as L.T. Johnson pointed out a decade or so ago, for most people the important evidence has not been “Jesus lived”, but “Jesus Lives!” I recently read _Christianizing the Roman Empire_, and MacMullen points out there the big thing for most people was not “Jesus lived”, but “Jesus did this miracle three weeks ago to Joe the smith through one of his followers!”
I can’t criticise Maurice Casey because his books are expensive and have way too much Aramaic for me to read. Still, can I frown on him on general principles? Or cast disaproving glances his way, at least?
Talk about thread drift!
How can you frown on him on general principles if you won’t read him? You can’t!!! ;-) Order him from the library or wait for The Life which does have a tiny little bit of Aramaic but is written in a way to reach a much wider audience – including Casey skeptics like you.
Steph:
You’ve piqued my interest in Casey’s book. I’ll have to add it to my Amazon wish list.
Bryan L
Steph,
Are you sure you’re not a conservative Christian? You argue like many I have come across.
I can’t count the number of times someone has made an assertion like “Habermas” demonstrated so-and-so” or “Craig established so-and-so” or “Bauckham proved so-and-so” and advised me to go read the scholar in question so I could understand how strong the argument is. Usually it’s nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. Nevertheless, I have read quite a bit of stuff, but since I can’t read everything, it usually takes something more than a bare assertion that a work is important to inspire me to so. I regret that this disappoints you.
The fact of the matter, however, is that I have not criticized Crossley’s theory at all. I criticized you for asserting his theory as an established fact, but you have since informed me that this was not your purpose. I did say that I consider the whole business of dating to be speculative, but I think this can safely be inferred from the wide range of scholarly opinions and the scarcity of evidence. It is not a knock on Crossley or his theory.
I can’t take you seriously when you criticise the dating game as speculative and you’ll criticise me for endorsing a hypothesis you won’t read. The evidence that convinces me has to do with assumptions the author of Mark makes regarding his audience which wouldn’t be understood by a later audience, things regarding Jewish law, lack of conflict material between Gentiles and Jews and more. But I’m not really disappointed. If you don’t want to read the book and interact with the arguments in it, and criticise me instead with a backhanded attack at conservative Christians’ arguments, that’s your loss.
Bryan: Good lad ;-)
May I just clarify the subtitle of my last post “The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony: Case Closed?”
The subtitle (“Case Closed”) seems to be misleading or even a little arrogant. Isn’t it?
I apologize for this miscommunication. Well, by using the phrase “Case Closed” as a subtitle, my intention was never to infer that we should just accept the premise that the “Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Not at all! In fact, I’ll welcome further dialogue on the topic in the future.
As Cameron himself, and many others who’ve read my interactions with Mr. Rilley (=Cameron) would probably understand what I meant by the subtitle. By “Case Closed” I insist that my discussion on the topic is “now” closed and over, due to time constraint. From the beginning of my conversation with Cameron, I made it clear to him that I would probably not have the time to continue the conversation. And Cameron himself understood that.
Thanks for your understanding friends. This topic is worth discussing further. Even if we have to talk about whether Jesus existed or not! :)
Big Thanks to Nick for allowing us continue this interaction.
Regards,
Celucien
Celucien,
Thank you for that clarification.
Steph,
One thing that often induces me to go read some book is when the person who is challenging me to do so actually explains and defends the arguments themselves. The thing is that I can read a book and I can contemplate the arguments in a book, but I really can’t interact with them because the book won’t respond to my questions or challenges. A person’s willingness to interact on the materials is what inspires me to read a book. However, when a person vaguely asserts that a book contains evidence of “assumptions” and “things” that they find convincing, I remain unpersuaded that there is much potential for meaningful interaction.
Perhaps you would be willing to interact on a couple of other points:
(1) Do you really think that my use of the word “speculative” renders me unworthy of being taken seriously? I thought that Crossley did a good job of demonstrating the uncertainties of trying to date Mark by external evidence in the section of his book I read. The three reviews I read of Crossley’s book as well as his comments in response indicated to me that dating Mark based on internal evidence is much less than a precise science as well. Do you disagree? If so, can you explain your disagreement in some way other than insisting that I go read the rest of Crossley’s book?
(2) Do you understand what I mean when I say that I objected to you stating that “Mark was not written ‘several decades’ after the event” as if that were an established fact? I was neither criticizing Crossley’s theory nor you for endorsing his theory. I was criticizing what struck me as an overstatement.
(3) Based on my experience commenting on this blog, I did not think that my comment about fallacious appeals to authority exceeded the bounds of acceptable snarkiness.
Nick,
I sense this is getting pretty far a field. I will happily drop it at your request.
Celucien: Thank you for your clarification. I had actually understood that from reading the exchanges but I think your note will be beneficial to those who maybe haven’t had the chance.
Vinny: Everything’s gotten so far off topic that it would seem silly to insist that it goes back now. ;-) If you and Steph want to exchange a few more comments on this particular subject I don’t mind. But let’s keep it within reason.
Thanks Nick! Here are my thoughts on Crossley based upon on the limited understanding I was able to gain without buying and reading a book that lists for $84 on Amazon.
This is my understanding of Crossley’s thesis:
(1) Mark implicitly assumes a Jesus who is a devout follower of Jewish law. Matthew, writing after Mark, makes Jesus’ adherence to Jewish law more explicit.
(2) The logical explanation for this is that Matthew was responding to disputes between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians over how much adherence to Jewish law was required and Mark was writing at an early date before those controversies had arisen within the church.
Regarding the first point, it seems to me that it would take years and years of study before I could adequately interact with Crossley’s arguments. If that is what it takes for me to intelligently comment on the question of the dating of Mark, I think I will just have to throw up my hands and resign myself to simply accepting scholarly consensus as the best estimate. That would mandate that I reject Crossley.
On the other hand, I do feel that I can interact with the second point with some common sense observations.
The fact that Mark’s writing assumes Jesus’ adherence to Jewish law does not seem sufficient basis to conclude either that there were no controversies on the issue or that Mark did not know of any controversies. A simple illustration of this would seem to be Steph’s comment: “Mark was not written ‘several decades’ after the event. James Crossley spells out quite clearly why Mark was written within several years of the event.” If I had nothing else to go on other than this, I would assume that Steph did not believe that there was any significant scholarly dispute about the dating of Mark. That would plainly be wrong.
The fact is that partisans often write in a way that assumes that there is no significant dispute even when they know there is. Go to the Daily Kos and Townhall.com and you will find scads of articles that are written as if there is no conceivable position other than the one that the author holds. I don’t think the fact that Mark’s writing assumes Jesus’ adherence to the law leads to the conclusion that it was a matter upon which there was no controversy.
The fact that Matthew makes explicit what Mark assumes does not seem to me to be terribly compelling either. Mark may have thought that he was making Jesus’ adherence plenty obvious. He may have intended to influence the gentile-Jewish dispute within the church. Matthew may have seen the need to make it even more explicit simply because the dispute had persisted and the gentile side was gaining ground.
Another possibility is that Mark’s audience was a community in which the Jewish view held sway for a longer period of time. There were sects like the Ebionites who viewed adherence to the Jewish law as a necessary part of following Christ for several centuries. It may be that Mark’s assumptions were the result of the place where he wrote his gospel rather than the time when he wrote it.
My second point would be one of textual integrity. While the substance of the argument about Mark’s assumptions is beyond my knowledge, it does strike me that it is a very nuanced argument that requires a very precise exegesis of a couple of passages. It would seem to me that such an argument assumes a very high level of confidence that the texts we have are extremely close to the autographs. On this blog, the question of whether it even makes any sense to talk about the originals has made for some interesting discussion.
It strikes me that even the most conservative scholars of textual criticism would allow for the possibility that the text of Mark had been tweaked by scribes in the years between when Mark wrote it and the first extant manuscripts. If some scribe had decided to tone Mark down because he found Mark’s Jesus just a little too Jewish, he might make an insignificant change that no one would ever notice because it had no impact whatsoever on doctrine. However, it might mean that Mark actually had been more explicit about Jesus’ adherence to the law that it now appears. This might indicate that, like Matthew, he was responding to the Jewish-gentile disputes. On the other hand, if a scribe had decided to make Mark’s Jesus a little more Jewish, it might mean that Mark himself had not assumed as much adherence as Crossley’s argument requires in order to put Mark before the disputes had arisen.
It just seems to me that Crossley’s arguments require us to think in terms of the originals in a way that really isn’t warranted by the available manuscript evidence. Even a minor variant—perhaps even one that was accidental rather than intentional—might be enough to lead to a different conclusion.
I know that you hate long comments Nick, but this is not an issue that I ever expect to come up any place else and I cannot resist getting a reaction to my ideas.
I love it when people review the evidence and arguments used by an author and his thesis when they don’t know what the evidence is, because they haven’t (and obviously haven’t) read the book. Unbelieveable. Obviously a concensus – or rather, a majority opinion, is not always right. Look what I have to deal with in synoptic scholarship – the “Q” consensus. So lets just not read my thesis and go with the consensus, eh. Crossley’s book is of course available in libraries. I don’t care if you don’t read it but I do care about reading a misinforming ‘review’ of a book where the reviewer has not read the book.
Steph,
Thanks for the enlightening discussion.
The thesis of Mark’s date is based on both internal and external evidence. I will discuss the thesis if you read it although not on a post of Nick’s not specifically about dating.
Steph,
That is a very attractive offer. However, the fact that you have not interacted with anything I have written so far leaves me indifferent to your proposition. Thanks anyway.
What haven’t I interacted with/ The date of Mark thesis is based on an argument of cumulative weight. It is not a precise science but neither is it purely speculative.
Steph,
Let me suggest an analogous situation to you:
I understand Nick’s antipathy towards Jesus mythers I have come across more than a few whose arguments are shrill, obnoxious, and poorly reasoned. I appreciate Nick’s reasons for deeming them to be a class of people unworthy of being taken seriously.
On the other hand, I have also read some well-reasoned thoughtful arguments from people who might fairly be described as mythers. Generally, the arguments that I find persuasive go to the question of whether the historical Jesus is knowable rather than whether the historical Jesus existed. Nevertheless, there are mythers I think worthy of being taken seriously.
Let’s suppose that I were to recommend a myther book to Nick. I suppose it’s possible that I have earned enough cred with him that he would read the book solely on my suggestion, but I would not expect him to do so. I would expect that I would have to explain some of the arguments in the book and respond to his questions and objections. I don’t think it would be enough to say to him “You don’t know because you haven’t read it.”
Let’s further suppose that Nick took the initiative to learn something more about the book on his own. Suppose he read some thoughtful reviews of the book. Suppose he visited the author’s blog. Suppose he even read a chapter or two of the book. Suppose he then came back to me and said, “It looks to me like there are some fundamental flaws in the author’s approach. I am not interested in reading this book.” I would think that his efforts would obligate me to address his questions and objections. I don’t think I would have any business saying to him “How dare you criticize the author without reading the entire book.” If I did, I think he would be entirely justified in saying to me “Go jump in a lake, Vinny.”
I think I have made an entirely reasonable effort to learn enough about Crossley’s thesis in order to determine for myself whether reading his entire book is a wise use of my time. I am confident that the reviews I read were thoughtful and fair-minded because I read Crossley’s responses and he viewed them as thoughtful and fair-minded. I understand that his case is cumulative, but I think the question of what can be inferred about the disputes that existed at the time Mark wrote his gospel is fundamental to the entire argument. I thought I explained that concern reasonably well.
You on the other hand, have not engaged my concerns. You have done nothing but abuse me for not reading the entire book.
Ergo, I say to you: “Go jump in a lake, Steph!” Perhaps in some future discussion you will show yourself worthy of being taken seriously. Until such time: case closed.
Well guys, I think this particular part of the discussion has come to an end. You gave it your best shot. Perhaps after I’ve read Crossley’s book I’ll post some stuff and you can continue the discussion over there.
I don’t think he’s worth my time after that little rant, Nick (which I couldn’t be bothered reading except for the last lines) :-)
You could tell it was a little rant without reading it? Well played!
I distinguish a difference between reading and skimming.