tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post3117319251871081111..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Was Jesus Illiterate (II)? Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90370731218255871372017-05-19T14:39:33.108-07:002017-05-19T14:39:33.108-07:00Yes, it is bizarre, but that kind of reasoning is ...Yes, it is bizarre, but that kind of reasoning is remarkably ubiquitous, including from leading scholars at top universities. I have seen it from Paula Fredriksen at Harvard, for instance. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-35520113104041827052017-05-19T12:47:37.028-07:002017-05-19T12:47:37.028-07:00I recently finished my (now-deceased) father-in-la...I recently finished my (now-deceased) father-in-law's memoirs. He writes with remarkable clarity and precision about events that took place when he was in High School (in the early 1940s). To suggest that a delay of forty years from the event precludes the accurate transmission of history is bizarre. Particularly when that transmission almost certainly involved an oral tradition (kerygma) whose content and dissemination was clearly significant to those participating in it.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197663817396506388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-78941194530461800782017-05-19T09:48:12.920-07:002017-05-19T09:48:12.920-07:00(5) Huh? You made a claim about when Mark was writ...(5) Huh? You made a claim about when Mark was written. I point out that some scholars disagree with your claim. Now you admit that the question you raised is meaningless, or "idle speculation?" So then why did you raise it?<br /><br />(6) I'm talking about chronology, here. YOU emphasized the length of time to Mark's authorship in order to claim that Mark's story had nothing to do with memory. My only point here is that even allowing your own dates, time provides you no such service. It doesn't help your case at all. Do stay on point, please.<br /><br />And no, I don't find that line of argument convincing. What amazes me are how many and diverse are the "sources" skeptics have to draw on, to crib together the raw materials for the gospels. Read a new skeptic, and you often get ten or twenty new "sources." This only proves how flimsy the argument really is.<br /><br />Some of these facts are entirely beyond dispute. For instance, male literacy is ALWAYS higher than female literacy, and not just among one particular occupation. You appear to be one of those "skeptics" whose whole construct is a house of cards, who knows that if one card is removed, the whole edifice will come crashing down, and therefore is unwilling to admit even the most blatant and obvious oversight on his own part.<br /><br />And it's just a lie to describe my citation of UNESCO figures, or ancient Roman gender biases, or secular philosophers, as "unsupported faith claims." I support each of my points with evidence, largely from secular and unimpeachable sources, in the article linked above, and to a lesser extent in this thread. How do you dare to look at that evidence and, without addressing or contradicting it (I don't think you can), claim that all I'm offering are unsupported "faith claims?" This is shameless, and it confirms what I often say about most DC denizens: you really don't seem to care about the truth you once defended.<br /><br />I think you know, at some level, how far you have wandered from genuine concern for truth.<br /><br />I often speak in PC-USA churches. I'll try to remember you next time I do.<br /><br />BTW, in calling the gospels "fairy tales," you either show that you don't know what a fairy tale is, or that you don't know what a gospel is. (Or, again, that you are a little careless about what truth is.) See JRR Tolkien's On Fairy Stories, or his friend the great literary scholar C. S. Lewis, for a primer.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90168428875904696162017-05-19T09:48:03.697-07:002017-05-19T09:48:03.697-07:00And here's mine:
(1) Are you seriously claimi...And here's mine:<br /><br />(1) Are you seriously claiming that males (aside from scribes) were no more likely to be literate than females in ancient Israel? That flies in the face of every survey I have yet found on gender and literacy, and all we know about ancient ME civilization.<br /><br />(2) You're just guessing, again in the face of all we know about the difference between rural and urban populations. I explain in more detail in that thread, including quotes from UNESCO. The idea that peasants farming the land would be as likely to be literate as urban dwellings -- some of whom clearly had time on their hands, or the whole rise of Christianity is totally inexplicable -- is absurd on the face of it. Peasants are NEVER as literate as city-dwellers. Some of Jesus' followers were involved in the bureaucracy, or ran businesses, as is quite credible among urban followers of a new set. (See Rodney Stark on the sociology of high-tension sects.)<br /><br />(3) It is possible that I know more about learning scripts than you do, having attained basic literacy in a fair number of scripts myself. (Including two, modern and classical Chinese, which involve vastly more work than does learning an alphabet.) Greek took practically no time, and as I explain, when you hear Aramaic or Greek every day, literacy doesn't take as much time as it would for someone learning a foreign written language, as I have done several times. And no, I'm not half as smart as Jesus.<br /><br />(4) You seem to assume that "all serious historians" are atheists, which is patently untrue. NT Wright has been described by one secular philosopher as the most sophisticated NT historian of our time, and he wrote an entire book describing evidence for Jesus' resurrection. "Miracles happen in the gospels, so their stories can't be true" only persuades people who hold to dogmatic skepticism.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-32228017660306520332017-05-19T09:46:02.588-07:002017-05-19T09:46:02.588-07:00Here's DC's response:
"David Marsha...Here's DC's response: <br /><br />"David Marshall, let me run through your "series of facts" one by one. (1) No one disputes that Jesus was male or that males were "more likely" to be literate than females; however, unless Jesus was trained as a scribe, he was no more likely to be literate than his female counterparts. (2) Here you cite a "fact" that may be true in modern cultural settings but that has no relevance to first-century peasants who moved to urban areas desperately seeking work; they had neither time to read nor access to written materials because they were scrounging to survive. (3) Your suggestion that it would have taken Jesus only a "few hours" to "learn [his] letters" demonstrates that you have no understanding of what was involved in acquiring scribal literacy. (4) Claims in the gospel that contradict what research has shown about the first-century milieu in which Jesus lived do not constitute "strong positive evidence" for anything--except, perhaps, the vivid imagination of the evangelists. There are claims that Jesus walked on water, miraculously multiplied loaves and fishes, and raised people from the dead, and no serious historian thinks those claims constitute strong positive evidence of the events described. (5) When you say, "Mark may have ________," you can fill in the blank with anything you like, because you're engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. (6) Here you suggest that the gospels present the "direct memories" of various people involved in the events described. Literary analysis of the gospels suggests something quite different. For example, many details mentioned in the scene of Jesus' crucifixion appear to have been drawn not from eyewitness testimony but from the testimony of the OT Scriptures. As historical Jesus research has now demonstrated, the gospels are not journalistic reports written to provide eyewitness testimony but pious literature intended to cultivate faith.<br /><br />"I haven't "overlooked" your "series of facts," and you've made no "real arguments" worthy of refutation. As I noted in my previous post, you are simply spouting unsupported faith claims. What is truly "shameless" is your willingness to suggest that you've offered relevant "facts" about the first-century milieu of Jesus. Like all religious apologists, you try to defend your faith, but you're only fooling yourself (and, of course, others like you who are unwilling to face reality).<br /><br />"What is truly "unbelievable" is the Christian faith. What is truly "unbelievable" is the Bible. What is truly "unbelievable" is anyone who wastes his time trying to defend fairy tales."David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-82476934398014658592017-05-19T09:45:08.356-07:002017-05-19T09:45:08.356-07:00LOL. Yes, I knew a carpenter once who read quite ...LOL. Yes, I knew a carpenter once who read quite a bit. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-70465270468153260122017-05-19T09:25:55.006-07:002017-05-19T09:25:55.006-07:001."And they found Jesus teaching in the templ...1."And they found Jesus teaching in the temple". If the audience is tolerating him teaching, he almost certainly began with a reading of the Torah, or at least quoting it.<br />Jesus claimed that he came to fulfill the scriptures and the prophecies. He had knowledge of some pretty obscure stuff. Things that likely would not have been the subject of the Saturday morning synagogue sermons.<br /> 2. Contrary to popular belief, carpenters can actually read. Check the advertisements on Craigslist. Strong written and verbal communications required.<br />3. Jerusalem was at the crossroads of many countries, and was quite cosmopolitan at the time. An education would pay off.<br />4. The Jewish tradition requires the 12 year old to read from the Torah for his bar mitzvah. Not sure how far this goes back. But Jesus was teaching in the temple on his twelfth birthday. <br /> Again, he came to fulfill the prophecies, each and every one. Gotta read to know what they are.<br /><br />Ps, it's Steve's birthday<br /><br />Equity in Infrastructurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11233162563221515708noreply@blogger.com