@realRobertArmel @JoelMCurzon Plugging in the numbers, it gives us 28 potential authors of gMark in 70CE. No wonder the Greek is a bit rough. :)
English
Finntrasan
10.4K posts
@JoelMCurzon (I'm assuming sophisticated, literate people in general were in relatively short supply, not that the average Christian was either. So whatever number of Christians we think capable of writings these gospels...1%?...there would be 5x that number after each 50 years.)
English
“How *late* could we date the gospels?”
An incredibly clear discussion about when the canonical gospels may actually have been written, and what the evidence actually supports.
It is plausible that *all* of the gospels were written in the 2nd century.
youtu.be/CYMgxhYSmiw?si…
YouTube
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign As mentioned, ultimately it’s a witticism by a comedian and (unlike the somewhat related Many Gods Objection to Pascal’s wager) not a philosophical argument in favor of atheism/agnosticism.
English
@finntrasan @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign Most monotheists also believe in other spiritual powers (which they may identify with some of the gods people believe in), so it also falls flat for that reason.
English
In other words, if it is strange to you, Christian (Muslim, Jew, etc.), to think that Zeus is real, it is precisely *that strange* to those outside your tribe to think Yahweh is real.
But don't monotheists at least believe in the *core attributes* of the other particular (monotheist) gods: eternal, complete, fundamental, creator, mind-like?
Ricky Gervais@rickygervais
@CosmicSkeptic I'm not going to critique your analogy, but I feel I should explain that my point wasn't trying disprove the existence of gods. It was pointing out to monotheists, who can't imagine how I could not believe in their particular god, that they do the very same with the other gods.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign The twist lies precisely in avoiding the theist/atheist dichotomy, and instead frame a monotheist as someone who rejects the existence of all gods except one. Ricky’s joke would fall flat if applied to a polytheist or omnist.
English
@finntrasan @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign The joke assumes a misunderstanding of what atheism, theism, and so on, means?
Also, the only difference isn't that the theist accepts a particular God. It is that the theist believes in a God, which they happen to identify with a particular God. The atheist believes in none.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign Fwiiw, I think your version of Ricky’s joke is much more successful than the one Alex came up with. :)
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign Yes, not the cleanest analogy but I agree that this would preserve the spirit of the joke. The scientist (just like the monotheist) will of course argue that the model he holds to is different than the rejected alternatives, but if that is true or not is irrelevant to the joke.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign The point of the joke is that both the monotheist and the atheist rejects thousands of specific Gods, and the only difference is the rejection of one specific God more. If we revert to a traditional theist/atheist frame, the punchline is lost.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign If we want to criticize the joke, or create an analogy to it, we need to relate to what is actually stated. The “just one more God” refers to the specific deity the monotheist believes in, not “all possible Gods”.
English
@AbahmanAll34931 According to Tertullian and Epiphanius, Marcion’s version of Luke began with Jesus preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. No nativity story, no baptism.
English
Luke (1:1 to 1:57) was rejected by Marcion (85–160 AD) and his followers (...)and they reject all the books of the Old Testament ...
For them , Luke begins with the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:57).
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign That was not my objection. The brother in Alex’ version is rejecting the entire concept of a father, when he should have been rejecting the fathers the brothers believed in, ie the German, American and English fathers. (Which seems entirely rational. Maybe the father was Dutch?)
English
@finntrasan @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign If you don't like Alex's framing (although I think he's obviously right there), we could just change it to mirror your reconstruction of Gervais's joke:
The brother who doesn't believe they have a father is then saying "we’re not that different". But of course that's false...
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign Gervais literally said in the interview he doesn’t know if there is a god or not. In Alex’ “analogy”, the last brother somehow claims he doesn’t think they have a dad at all. The correct analogy would be that he didn’t believe in any of the dads the other brothers postulated.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign No, Alex analogy does not preserve the joke, which is that, since we all reject most postulated Gods, the difference between an atheist and a monotheist is just rejection of one god more. It’s playfully saying “we’re not that different”, not arguing that one view is preferable.
English
@realRobertArmel @JoelMCurzon @hookskat Indeed. I was actually referring to this exact passage here :)
Finntrasan@finntrasan
@Alfredovich65 @TSinner64796 I agree with BeDuhn that Vinzent simply builds too much upon too little evidence. It’d take something quite compelling to convince me that gMark would have used gMarcion, rather than vice versa. Having that said, there are some elements of gMcn/Lk that might well predate Mk.
English
Time for me to complain, which is what I do best. These academic books can be quite expensive, but often they’re cheaply bound (glued, not sewn). This won’t hold up well over time. Come on, Cambridge . . .
(Happy to have the book, nevertheless.)
English
@JoelMCurzon @hookskat This is an example of Vinzent taking his hypothesis *way* further than what the evidence allows, imo. markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/12/two-re…
English
@JoelMCurzon @hookskat Yes, I agree with the larger point about the available evidence not backing up the confidence level many display regarding the origins of the gospels. I think my point was that this apply to Vinzent’s hypothesis too. If he is wrong only about one datapoint, his model collapses.
English
@JoelMCurzon @hookskat While I largely agree with the general point, it should be noted that Vinzent subscribe to some minority views regarding late dating/authenticity of 1 Clement, Ignatius and the Didache, making the post-Marcionite hypothesis possible.
English
@hookskat He also argues for Lukan priority, which I don’t find plausible (I’m convinced that Mark is the earliest gospel, which is the scholarly consensus). But it’s very interesting to see how little we actually have before ~140-150 CE.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign I think the issue here is that both atheists and theists are reading more into it than what it is stated. Alex O’Connors “analogy” is not analogous at all. If you revert his version of the story back to a discussion about Gods (rather than dads), this becomes pretty obvious.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign What is the flawed reasoning, in just the joke itself as told, and without reading claims into it that is not stated (ie “therefore there is no God”, or “therefore Christianity must be wrong” etc)?
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign It’d be like a person who dislikes baseball telling a Yankees fan; “you already hate 29 teams in the league, I just hate one more.” The joke is in the reframing of the position.
English
@Alfredovich65 @morallawwithin @worldviewdesign It’s less of a reasoning than a witticism, imo. Like most jokes, it doesn’t necessarily hold up to philosophical scrutiny, nor does it get funnier when explained. :)
English
@JoelMCurzon @realRobertArmel @PeterKropotki16 It’d just be an unnecessary lie, imo. Why (unconvincingly) explain away a seemingly unfulfilled prophecy, if no one had heard of, or believed in, the prophecy to begin with? I am not saying aJohn is honest, just that the simples explanation is someone really did unexpectedly die.
English
@finntrasan @realRobertArmel @PeterKropotki16 I think it’s a lie designed to give authority to the text. I think of the Gospel of John as one damned lie after another.
English
Who was “the beloved disciple” in the Gospel of John?
Explain. (No, “the church told me so” won’t do.)
English