Either Or

[liamconnor]

The following is a loose quote from a scholar:

Since the canvas is drawn, and since several titles given to Jesus in the fourth gospel also appear in the synoptics, it is reasonable to presume that what we see in John are numerous segments of common gospel tradition already available to John in written form when John determined to write his gospel.

The key phrase is "it is reasonable to presume". This is not a peculiar maneuver. Historians are constantly presuming something because they see the presumption to be reasonable.

Two Questions:

1) Suppose I told you that on this presumption the scholar launches a devastating attack against the Christian case? Would you say his presumption is reasonable? Why, why not?

2) Suppose I told you the author were a Christian, and launched a defense for Christianity based on this presumption. Would you say the presumption is unreasonable? Why, why not?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I can't make a case either way, myself. The reason being that all I know about this scholar, and what he knows, is that Gospel John has several titles for Jesus that were in the earlier gospels.
Other than that, I know nothing about this scholar's level of knowledge. He could be the most learned scholar imaginable or this could be literally the only thing he knows about the Gospels. I need to know more about this guy, and which of the two options you give (defend or attack), before I can make a determination that whatever his option was, was reasonable.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

So, your position is such:

You agree that, in theory, there are reasonable presumptions to be held in history?

That if a presumption is reasonable, it matters not whether it is used in defense of Christianity, or to undermine it?

I am not sure what it matters where this scholar is employed, or what education he has. Either it is reasonable, or it isn't.

I will expand on the sentence to draw out the logic: In short, the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels, despite their vast differences, all use common designations for Jesus. Thus it is unlikely that John is 100% independent of the other communities--whatever developed separately with John, it was not the titles. There is common tradition behind them. It is also held by this scholar that the title Son of Man goes back to Jesus, for it appears nowhere in the earliest Christian literature (Paul). However, he doubts whether Jesus was ever referred to as the Son of God, or if he were, it would have been son of God, a designation which all Jews had a right to.



Now, seeing the logic, suppose this scholar were either from Aberdeen or the British Academy (one of these is correct).

Now, suppose he uses the above argument to launch a defense for the resurrection. Is it good?


Suppose he uses it to attack the historicity of the resurrection, is it good?



Edit:

I need to know more about this guy, and which of the two options you give (defend or attack), before I can make a determination that whatever his option was, was reasonable.

This sounds as if you are saying, "I need to know whether he is supporting Christianity or attacking it, before I can determine whether it is reasonable?" Is that what you are saying?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

For, his response, which was non-committal, the only honest answer, you seem to have derived a lot of positive affirmations.

Been reading, "Getting to yes?"

[Divine Insight]

The following is a loose quote from a scholar:

Since the canvas is drawn, and since several titles given to Jesus in the fourth gospel also appear in the synoptics, it is reasonable to presume that what we see in John are numerous segments of common gospel tradition already available to John in written form when John determined to write his gospel.

The key phrase is "it is reasonable to presume". This is not a peculiar maneuver. Historians are constantly presuming something because they see the presumption to be reasonable.

I would personally accept this as being a reasonable presumption. Especially considering that we know that synoptics were written before John. So I accept that it's reasonable that John would be aware of what had already been written about the religion that he is also writing about.

Two Questions:

1) Suppose I told you that on this presumption the scholar launches a devastating attack against the Christian case? Would you say his presumption is reasonable? Why, why not?

2) Suppose I told you the author were a Christian, and launched a defense for Christianity based on this presumption. Would you say the presumption is unreasonable? Why, why not?

It wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. I would need to hear the actual arguments in both cases. I have often seen people start with a presumption only to make non-sequitur arguments that bring them to a conclusion that I still wouldn't agree with anyway.

So to merely accept their initial premise as being reasonable doesn't automatically mean that their argument is going to be logically sound.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

It wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. I would need to hear the actual arguments in both cases.

That is not the question.

Are you saying that the presumption holds reasonable regardless of the fact that the author uses it to launch a striking defense for the resurrection.


I will later show that attack once I get enough answers.

[Mithrae]

The following is a loose quote from a scholar:

Since the canvas is drawn, and since several titles given to Jesus in the fourth gospel also appear in the synoptics, it is reasonable to presume that what we see in John are numerous segments of common gospel tradition already available to John in written form when John determined to write his gospel.

The key phrase is "it is reasonable to presume". This is not a peculiar maneuver. Historians are constantly presuming something because they see the presumption to be reasonable.

Two Questions:

1) Suppose I told you that on this presumption the scholar launches a devastating attack against the Christian case? Would you say his presumption is reasonable? Why, why not?

2) Suppose I told you the author were a Christian, and launched a defense for Christianity based on this presumption. Would you say the presumption is unreasonable? Why, why not?

It may be "reasonable" to presume that, to the extent that it's not explicitly unreasonable, but it's quite a weak inference. Literary dependence could be strongly demonstrated by a) multiple instances of identical wording for whole sentences or unusual phrases or b) similar sequencing of different stories, even if each story is told differently.

Individual stories themselves could easily spread by word of mouth and/or be based on real events, so the mere presence of comparable stories doesn't imply literary dependence. Similarly titles of a figure are perhaps the thing which folk will most associate with that person, even more than their teachings or stories of their deeds, and if so would be the most likely to spread without need of written material. 'Christ,' 'Lord' and 'Son of God' are very obvious ones which Christians generally might use; 'Son of Man' perhaps a little less so, but it's the complement to 'Son of God,' and invokes the messianic imagery of Daniel 7.

But even then, some of John's most important titles for Jesus such as the 'Word/logos' or the 'Lamb of God' (the former fundamental to John's theology, and the latter aptly characterizing most Christian theology) are absent from the synoptics, while at least one of the synoptics' most striking titles, Son of David (emphasizing Jesus' messianic status) is present in all three but absent from John.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

It wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. I would need to hear the actual arguments in both cases.

That is not the question.

Are you saying that the presumption holds reasonable regardless of the fact that the author uses it to launch a striking defense for the resurrection.


I will later show that attack once I get enough answers.

Well, that's what I need to see. I highly suspect that the argument will ultimately be non-sequitur.

So just present the argument and we can discuss that.

And by the way that was your question. My answer is that it wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. I need to hear the actual argument. So I did answer your question.

I don't judge a premise based on what conclusions I think it might lead to. That's more in line with how Christian apologists think.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I don't judge a premise based on what conclusions I think it might lead to. That's more in line with how Christian apologists think.

Not in my experience here.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I don't judge a premise based on what conclusions I think it might lead to. That's more in line with how Christian apologists think.

Not in my experience here.

Perhaps the problem is not the responses but the intial question?

Take this thread for instance, a loose likely innacurate quote used to segue into having people make affirmative arguments for or against a proposition that you have yet to reveal.

I don't get the cloak and daggers aspect, given the last thread where you wanted people to respond yes or no to a set of rules of debate without knowing what the debate was about I don't think people have an optimistic view of this one.

There is no reasonable response that can be made to this debate topic out side of let us reserve our judgment till we see the actual argument.