tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post8130840468205709167..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Amherst ConferenceRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89273893427828709852009-07-24T13:01:15.240-07:002009-07-24T13:01:15.240-07:00No, I haven't. You are the one using fallaciou...No, I haven't. You are the one using fallacious arguments and misrepresentations. I will not argue with such a person. We're done here.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-36908464377211734762009-06-01T18:58:12.793-07:002009-06-01T18:58:12.793-07:00Tom,
You missed it. I originally acknowledged th...Tom,<br /><br />You missed it. I originally acknowledged that Brown argues Judas betrayed Jesus, even before Richard said a word about it. My point was that Brown is one of those rare scholars who is capable of admitting that there is evidence which either contradicts his own belief or does not easily support it. "Paradidomi" is one of those pieces of evidence. In the second volumeLeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-77233902136037599432009-06-01T17:48:21.148-07:002009-06-01T17:48:21.148-07:00Leon, perhaps you missed it:
Richard Carrier wrot...Leon, perhaps you missed it:<br /><br />Richard Carrier wrote (two or three posts up):<br /><br /><i>"Brown has to burn three whole pages of dense text to argue that paradidonai has a primary meaning of hand over to the courts, which suggests some desperation, but in any case, I will repeat what I said: "my remarks about the word make this argument of yours irrelevant." I have saidTom Verennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134426966588179904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-62125658590869283902009-06-01T17:30:44.877-07:002009-06-01T17:30:44.877-07:00Arguing with you is like arguing with any NT schol...Arguing with you is like arguing with any NT scholar. It's like arguing with a witch trial judge. The evidence is irrelevant and presumed guilt is everything. <br /><br />You cannot produce any passage in Mark using the word "prodidomi" which does mean betray. Because it does not exist. (And you keep missing that Brown insisted so much that "paradidomi" does not mean Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58932182615579261022009-05-29T14:59:31.569-07:002009-05-29T14:59:31.569-07:00Leon said... You will never be able to overcome th...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>You will never be able to overcome the major fact about Mark's story that he is missing every single major detail of a story of betrayal.</I><BR><BR>No, he is not. I have pointed to several markers. They are there. And they are enough. They are clear and render no other explanation anywhere near as likely. All scholars agree. Now go take your Fluphenazine.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-87249725257247706172009-05-25T14:52:43.550-07:002009-05-25T14:52:43.550-07:00You will never be able to overcome the major fact ...You will never be able to overcome the major fact about Mark's story that he is missing every single major detail of a story of betrayal — he gives no clearly stated motive, no conflict Judas has with Jesus or other disciples, and not even anyone cursing Judas out after the deed is done. What is left in the text is all ambiguity. Even the one major fact about Judas — he disappeared from the Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-33747782587619883992009-05-13T10:05:00.000-07:002009-05-13T10:05:00.000-07:00Leon said... Here are the citations you asked for:...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>Here are the citations you asked for: Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah". In Vol. 1, pp. 211-13, 251, he discusses "paradidomi". On 251, he says the primary meaning is not betray.</I><BR><BR>Not exactly...<br /><br />"[According to the Synoptics] Judas had been PLOTTING with the chief priests and others who would eventually play a role in the Sanhedrin trial. John Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-80824885828268562652009-05-03T12:42:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:42:00.000-07:00Your repeated use of the word "delusional" is a pr...Your repeated use of the word "delusional" is a pretty good sign that you are engaging in mockery more than rational argument. Should I use the same word for some of the things you state? I could easily say that you would have to be out of your mind to believe that Judas' story is fictional, as I will explain below.<br /><br />Here are the citations you asked for: Raymond Brown, "The Death of Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-11531138561634240912009-04-13T19:58:00.000-07:002009-04-13T19:58:00.000-07:00Leon said... You are proving my point for me. Host...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>You are proving my point for me. Hostility towards any evidence that contradicts the traditional story and mockery are two chief means which scholars use to suppress rational debate.</I>Again I ask: Are you delusional? You have no evidence for me to show hostility for, and I didn't mock you even once. I am beginning to suspect you <I>are</I> delusional. To wit...<br /><br /Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-26149322988700483332009-04-08T20:08:00.000-07:002009-04-08T20:08:00.000-07:00You are proving my point for me. Hostility toward...You are proving my point for me. Hostility towards any evidence that contradicts the traditional story and mockery are two chief means which scholars use to suppress rational debate.<BR/><BR/>Your comment on "paradidomi" is indicative. There are so many scholars now, including highly conservative ones, who say that "paradidomi" either certainly or probably does not mean betray. William KlassenLeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-11957924746289750922009-03-24T15:22:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:22:00.000-07:00The Gospel of Peter contains the passion where Her...The Gospel of Peter contains the passion where Herod orders the death of Jesus. Just FYI.Tom Verennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134426966588179904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-38660712376726176052009-03-24T15:14:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:14:00.000-07:00I'm sorry, I need to make a correction; I said Luk...I'm sorry, I need to make a correction; I said Luke had had Herod order Jesus to be put to death--that should have read that Luke had the chief priests condemn Jesus to death. Luke might have had a copy of a Gnostic tradition where Herod had ordered the execution--which is why Herod plays a role in Luke where he doesn't in other traditions (Price and Loisy argue this and I'm inclined to agree).Tom Verennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134426966588179904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-77815117180356381622009-03-24T14:57:00.000-07:002009-03-24T14:57:00.000-07:00Leon, you seem to think that there is some huge an...Leon, you seem to think that there is some huge anti-Semitic conspiracy in academia. If this is the case, I wouldn't say you're delusional, but you're certainly not being rational. As Richard has already pointed out Chilton's work on the historical Jesus, I would also recommend J.P. Sanders and Geza Vermes; more recent studies of Christian origins have leaned primarily towards a Jewish Jesus (Tom Verennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134426966588179904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-63713652229112921742009-03-24T14:08:00.000-07:002009-03-24T14:08:00.000-07:00Leon said... The word Mark uses is "paradidomi". I...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>The word Mark uses is "paradidomi". I think a majority of scholars agree that it does not mean betray.</I><BR/><BR/>(1) That's false (check a lexicon and see) and (2) That's irrelevant (since my conclusions are not based on that word, but the context in which it is used).<BR/><BR/><I>A very innocent conveying is also a possibility.</I><BR/><BR/>Not in context. If it was Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-29904295337086890902009-02-19T13:16:00.000-08:002009-02-19T13:16:00.000-08:00I should respond to a couple of other points you m...I should respond to a couple of other points you made. I never said that Luke being anti-Jewish was the main point of Lüdemann's article. It is rather condescending of you to suggest that I re-read his article and does not suit good scholarship. Presenting Luke as uniformly anti-Jewish (in his Gospel and Acts) is a secondary point Lüdemann makes, but he does make it and makes it in an improper Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-50368296750452870442009-02-18T20:08:00.000-08:002009-02-18T20:08:00.000-08:00Richard,I will just respond to one of the points y...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I will just respond to one of the points you made above because it illustrates what is so wrong with historical Jesus studies. You state that there is no other interpretation of Mark 14:18-21 but that Judas is betraying Jesus. That is so wrong. This is what NT scholars continually do. They slant the evidence according to their assumptions and rule out anything that Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-51151451948295126722009-02-17T19:13:00.000-08:002009-02-17T19:13:00.000-08:00Bernard said......my conclusion about the “great o...<B>Bernard said...</B><BR/><BR/><I>...my conclusion about the “great omission” (and other considerations) does eliminate “Luke” knowing about gMatthew...</I><BR/><BR/>Get your theory published in a peer reviewed journal and we'll talk.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-22416682382147340282009-02-17T19:10:00.000-08:002009-02-17T19:10:00.000-08:00Macroman said... Somewhere I read that "the saying...<B>Macroman said...</B> <I>Somewhere I read that "the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew" (said to be collected by Mathew) might have meant "sayings about, concerning, with respect to the Lord in Hebrew", i.e. somebody who went thru the Hebrew scriptures to find all the "predictions" about the Lord. Is there any possibility of that? It's a question of Greek language on which I have no idea.</I><BR/><Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-44882215186197444862009-02-17T18:38:00.000-08:002009-02-17T18:38:00.000-08:00Leon said... It is not true that there is very lit...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>It is not true that there is very little that is clear and coherent in the Gospels.</I><BR/><BR/>Since I didn't say that, you are boxing with shadows here.<BR/><BR/><I>Everyone assumes that Jesus was surrounded and done in by Jewish enemies.</I><BR/><BR/>They don't "assume" this. They adduce it as a theory then deduce and look for evidence to support or undermine that Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58151719960217959532009-02-12T15:56:00.000-08:002009-02-12T15:56:00.000-08:00Somewhere I read that "the sayings of the Lord in ...Somewhere I read that "the sayings <B>of</B> the Lord in Hebrew" (said to be collected by Mathew) might have meant "sayings <B>about, concerning, with respect to</B> the Lord in Hebrew", i.e. somebody who went thru the Hebrew scriptures to find all the "predictions" about the Lord. Is there any possibility of that? It's a question of Greek language on which I have no idea.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-43933063823558030802009-02-06T09:35:00.000-08:002009-02-06T09:35:00.000-08:00Richard Carrier said... Bernard said... The Domini...Richard Carrier said... <BR/><I>Bernard said... The Dominical Logia: that looks very much like a reincarnation of Q (except for its alleged association with Deuteronomy), that the JS scholars, not too long ago, dated to have been written, in a large part, before the gospels (but I think most of Q was written after gMark became known).</I><BR/><BR/>RC: Not at all. You must not be well-read in the Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033875369678939413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-78214913913246024612009-01-30T20:17:00.000-08:002009-01-30T20:17:00.000-08:00One other thing: Your comment about Gerd Lüdemann...One other thing: Your comment about Gerd Lüdemann is incorrect. In his article, he does present Luke (in his Gospel and Acts) as uniformly anti-Jewish. He never mentions, not even hints at, a lot of the pro-Jewish evidence: Pharisees inviting Jesus to dinner, Pharisees warning him about Herod, Pharisees coming to the aid of Peter and then Paul, Paul stating there was no Jewish death penalty Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-57537220009033522202009-01-30T20:04:00.000-08:002009-01-30T20:04:00.000-08:00Richard,I have to disagree with some of your point...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I have to disagree with some of your points in the response above. It is not true that there is very little that is clear and coherent in the Gospels. There is actually quite a lot that is very coherent — particularly on the issues surrounding Judas and the meeting Jewish leaders had with Jesus. The only reason there appears to be some confusion and contradictions is because Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-81446652716744951772009-01-30T12:50:00.000-08:002009-01-30T12:50:00.000-08:00Leon said... The evidence in the Gospels is not a ...<B>Leon said...</B> <I>The evidence in the Gospels is not a mess. The mess comes from scholars who keep imposing their own ideas on the texts. They invent a theology and then transfer it to the texts. </I><BR/><BR/>That depends on what you mean by a "mess." The issues are indeed very complicated and not at all straightforward or easily resolved (so in that sense the Gospels are "a mess" in and ofRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-80976411382362358552009-01-30T12:49:00.000-08:002009-01-30T12:49:00.000-08:00Bernard said... The Dominical Logia: that looks ve...<B>Bernard said...</B> <I>The Dominical Logia: that looks very much like a reincarnation of Q (except for its alleged association with Deuteronomy), that the JS scholars, not too long ago, dated to have been written, in a large part, before the gospels (but I think most of Q was written after gMark became known).</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. You must not be well-read in the Q-literature. The standardRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.com