Saturday, August 18, 2012
Adam Taylor takes on Popular Mechanics
9/11 Truther Adam Taylor takes on that premier periodical of the best that science has to say on any matter, and hence was delegated with the task of defending the official version of the events of 9/11, Popular Mechanics.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Problems for Ehrman: #1, "Author of Life"
Bart Ehrman, in his book, Did Jesus Exist?, argued that the early followers of Jesus did not think he was God. Rather he thinks that there was a gradual theological development, where Jesus was first scene as a human being that was "adopted" as the Son of God at his resurrection; then later at his baptism; then still later at his conception; then still later as having pre-existed as the Son of God in Heaven. He cites the speeches in the book of Acts as evidence that the adoptionist view of Jesus was the original view. According to Ehrman, "...some of the speeches in Acts contain what scholars call preliterary traditions: oral traditions that had been in circulation from much earlier times that are found, now, only in their written forms in Acts. This is important information because, here again, it shows that Acts is not simply a document from the 80s CE. It incorporates much older traditions." The problem (for Ehrman) is that among the speeches that he includes as representing much older traditions is the one given by Peter in Acts chapter 3. But right in the middle of that speech Peter says,
"You killed the author of life [Jesus], but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."
That's a startling thing for Peter to say. The only "author of life" in Judaism was Yahweh. This reflects a much higher theological view of Jesus that an adoptionist theology would allow for. And I suspect that Ehrman would know that. So I'm puzzled as to why he included it in the list of speeches that he thought incorporated "much older traditions" than the document of Acts. Now perhaps it was just an oversight on Ehrman's part, which he forgot to edit out of his book. Or perhaps he thinks that statement by Peter is an interpolation of some kind. Or perhaps he has some other explanation as to what "the author of life" might mean. I would be curious to know what it might be. Maybe it's in one of his other books. He certainly didn't include it in this book.
But meanwhile, it is a problem for Ehrman on two counts. First, Ehrman argues against the common Mythicist view, which is that Jesus was first a divine mythical figure who later was transformed into a human being. Ehrman maintains that this couldn't be the case, since the first followers of Jesus didn't think he was divine at all. And second, Ehrman himself maintains that Jesus was merely human, relying upon the earliest oral traditions, which he thinks clearly reveals this. But if a speech that refers to Jesus as "the author of life" is one of the earliest oral traditions, then Ehrman's claim that the earliest historical sources support his view that Jesus was merely human must certainly be questioned.
There are other problems in his book, which I'll get to next time.
"You killed the author of life [Jesus], but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."
That's a startling thing for Peter to say. The only "author of life" in Judaism was Yahweh. This reflects a much higher theological view of Jesus that an adoptionist theology would allow for. And I suspect that Ehrman would know that. So I'm puzzled as to why he included it in the list of speeches that he thought incorporated "much older traditions" than the document of Acts. Now perhaps it was just an oversight on Ehrman's part, which he forgot to edit out of his book. Or perhaps he thinks that statement by Peter is an interpolation of some kind. Or perhaps he has some other explanation as to what "the author of life" might mean. I would be curious to know what it might be. Maybe it's in one of his other books. He certainly didn't include it in this book.
But meanwhile, it is a problem for Ehrman on two counts. First, Ehrman argues against the common Mythicist view, which is that Jesus was first a divine mythical figure who later was transformed into a human being. Ehrman maintains that this couldn't be the case, since the first followers of Jesus didn't think he was divine at all. And second, Ehrman himself maintains that Jesus was merely human, relying upon the earliest oral traditions, which he thinks clearly reveals this. But if a speech that refers to Jesus as "the author of life" is one of the earliest oral traditions, then Ehrman's claim that the earliest historical sources support his view that Jesus was merely human must certainly be questioned.
There are other problems in his book, which I'll get to next time.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
What were the Legal Penalties against Abortion?
When abortions were illegal (or where they still are illegal) what were the legal penalties against it? I might be mistaken, but I suspect that the punishment was less severe for abortion than for murder. Does anybody know?
Update: This article looks informative.
Update: This article looks informative.
What's in the Ryan Plan?
Paul Krugman is making it more difficult for me not to vote. Maybe I should just stop reading his blog.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Historical Views on Abortion and Legal Status of the Fetus
Gringo Royale and I have been carrying on a discussion concerning abortion. I admit that I am rather ignorant of the historical philosophical, theological and legal views regarding abortion and the status of the fetus. I thought I would start a post on it and let others contribute what they know about it. So far, I have found this article:
Abortion and Personhood: Historical and Comparative Notes.
Abortion and Personhood: Historical and Comparative Notes.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Summarizing Ehrman's Summary of the Historical Evidence for Jesus's Existence
In his book, Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman summarizes the historical evidence that "there really was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher who lived in Palestine as an adult in the 20s of the Common Era, crucified under Pontius Pilate sometime around the year 30." I've tried to summarize his summary, which one can find in his book, beginning on page 171:
"Among the Gospels we have numerous independent accounts that attest to Jesus's life, at least seven of them from within a hundred years of the traditional date of his death....They are based on written sources -- a good number of them -- that date much earlier, plausibly in some cases at least to the 50s of the Common Era....[The written sources] were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation year after year among the followers of Jesus....some of them...can be located in Jesus's homeland, Palestine, where they originally circulated in Aramaic. It appears that some, probably many, of them go back to the 30s CE. We are not, then dealing merely with Gospels that were produced fifty or sixty years after Jesus's alleged death as the principal witnesses to his existence. We are talking about a large number of sources, dispersed over a remarkably broad geographical expanse, many of them dating to the years immediately after Jesus's alleged life, some of them from Palestine itself. On the basis of this evidence alone, it is hard to understand how Jesus could have been 'invented.' Invented by whom? Where? When? How then could there be so many independent strands of evidence?
But that is just the beginning. The reality is that every single author who mentions Jesus -- pagan, Christian, or Jewish -- was fully convinced that he at least lived. Even the enemies of the Jesus movement thought so; among their many slurs against the religion, his nonexistence is never one of them....It is the view of all of our authors, for example, the authors of the epistles written both before and after Mark, whose views are based not on a reading of the Gospels but on traditions completely independent of Mark. It is also the view of Q and M and L and John and of all of John's sources. It is the view of the first-century books or letter of I Clement, I Peter, I John, Hebrews -- you name it. And it is also the view of the book of Acts, which preserves very primitive traditions in many speeches...that appear to date from the earliest years of the Christian movement, even before the followers of Jesus maintained that he was the Son of God for his entire life or even just from his baptism; according to these traditions, he became the son of God at his resurrection. This is the earliest Christology of them all, probably that of the original followers of Jesus, and so stems from the earliest Palestinian Christian communities. Once again we are back in the 30s of the Common Era, and the witness of these sources is unambiguous that Jesus existed.
The same results obtain by a careful study of Paul's letters. Paul came to know about Jesus within just a year or, at most, two of his death. Paul too preserves traditions that stem from the early period of his Christian life, right after his conversion around 32-33 CE. There is no doubt that Paul knew that Jesus existed. He mentions Jesus's birth, his Jewish heritage, his descent from David, his brothers, his ministry to Jews, his twelve disciples, several of his teachings, his Last Supper, and most important for Paul, his crucifixion. Paul indicates that he received some of these traditions from those who came before him, and it is relatively easy to determine when. Paul claims to have visited with Jesus's closest disciple, Peter, and with his brother James three years after his conversion, that is, around 35-36 CE. Much of what Paul has to say about Jesus, therefore, stems from the same early layer of tradition that we can trace, completely independently, in the Gospels."
"Among the Gospels we have numerous independent accounts that attest to Jesus's life, at least seven of them from within a hundred years of the traditional date of his death....They are based on written sources -- a good number of them -- that date much earlier, plausibly in some cases at least to the 50s of the Common Era....[The written sources] were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation year after year among the followers of Jesus....some of them...can be located in Jesus's homeland, Palestine, where they originally circulated in Aramaic. It appears that some, probably many, of them go back to the 30s CE. We are not, then dealing merely with Gospels that were produced fifty or sixty years after Jesus's alleged death as the principal witnesses to his existence. We are talking about a large number of sources, dispersed over a remarkably broad geographical expanse, many of them dating to the years immediately after Jesus's alleged life, some of them from Palestine itself. On the basis of this evidence alone, it is hard to understand how Jesus could have been 'invented.' Invented by whom? Where? When? How then could there be so many independent strands of evidence?
But that is just the beginning. The reality is that every single author who mentions Jesus -- pagan, Christian, or Jewish -- was fully convinced that he at least lived. Even the enemies of the Jesus movement thought so; among their many slurs against the religion, his nonexistence is never one of them....It is the view of all of our authors, for example, the authors of the epistles written both before and after Mark, whose views are based not on a reading of the Gospels but on traditions completely independent of Mark. It is also the view of Q and M and L and John and of all of John's sources. It is the view of the first-century books or letter of I Clement, I Peter, I John, Hebrews -- you name it. And it is also the view of the book of Acts, which preserves very primitive traditions in many speeches...that appear to date from the earliest years of the Christian movement, even before the followers of Jesus maintained that he was the Son of God for his entire life or even just from his baptism; according to these traditions, he became the son of God at his resurrection. This is the earliest Christology of them all, probably that of the original followers of Jesus, and so stems from the earliest Palestinian Christian communities. Once again we are back in the 30s of the Common Era, and the witness of these sources is unambiguous that Jesus existed.
The same results obtain by a careful study of Paul's letters. Paul came to know about Jesus within just a year or, at most, two of his death. Paul too preserves traditions that stem from the early period of his Christian life, right after his conversion around 32-33 CE. There is no doubt that Paul knew that Jesus existed. He mentions Jesus's birth, his Jewish heritage, his descent from David, his brothers, his ministry to Jews, his twelve disciples, several of his teachings, his Last Supper, and most important for Paul, his crucifixion. Paul indicates that he received some of these traditions from those who came before him, and it is relatively easy to determine when. Paul claims to have visited with Jesus's closest disciple, Peter, and with his brother James three years after his conversion, that is, around 35-36 CE. Much of what Paul has to say about Jesus, therefore, stems from the same early layer of tradition that we can trace, completely independently, in the Gospels."
Saturday, August 11, 2012
If I Decide to Vote...
...Paul Krugman has been arguing very persuasively that I should vote for Obama:
"Neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing. But the two men are not equivalent in their unrealism: Obama is proposing to raise revenue by around $80 billion a year compared with current policy, while Romney is proposing to cut revenue by around $450 billion a year compared with current policy. Obama is inadequate; Romney is intensely, screamingly irresponsible."
....but I still haven't decided to vote, yet.
"Neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing. But the two men are not equivalent in their unrealism: Obama is proposing to raise revenue by around $80 billion a year compared with current policy, while Romney is proposing to cut revenue by around $450 billion a year compared with current policy. Obama is inadequate; Romney is intensely, screamingly irresponsible."
....but I still haven't decided to vote, yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)