"You seem to be forgetting that no one knows who wrote the narrative attributed to a person named Mark. On what rational basis do you give so much credence to "early church tradition?"

The "early church traditions" provide us with the earliest testimony about who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Judging by the earl church fathers' statements, as well as the manuscript evidence, there was no dispute as to who wrote Mark. Moreover, given the early church's importance on apostolic authority, it is highly unlikely that they would have invented Mark as the author of this gospel. He was not an eyewitness and was portrayed somewhat negatively in Acts.

"To be correct, you should say that Luke made the claim that he "investigated the things about which he wrote." Do you believe every writer's claims? I do not."

The style of Luke's writings suggest that his writings were of the genre of Greek Historiagrophers. Unlike Roman historians, the Greek historiagrophers were known for actually going out and doing legwork and research before they wrote their works. Moreover, Luke accurately refers to a great many local geographic names, as well as local political leaders and offices. These references, which would have been unavailable to the general Roman world, demonstrate that he actually traveled to many of the places he referenced, and that he researched the rest. In short, all of the evidence points towards Luke having done real research, as well as having actually participated in the events. This does not mean he was inerrant, but it does suggest that he did in fact investigate matters. Hopefully, I'll be able to post something on the authorship of Luke in the near future.

"How do you know this?"

See above.

"There is strong evidence that the writer of Luke embellished (i.e., created fictional material) Mark."

Prove it.

"Again, the writer claimed to be an eyewitness. That does not mean he necessarily was."

See above.

"What is the point? Is this supposed to lend support the idea that one of the NT writers was an eye-witness?"

No. The analogy is appropriate. My point was that the author of a book does not have to be an eyewitness to the events described to contain eyewitness evidence.

"False analogy. Which of the NT writers died before finishing his work?"

As I tried to make clear, I believe that John did.

"I recommend Bart D. Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture or Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration or Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development."

I actually have and have read much of Metzger's work. Did you know that he tends to favor the traditional assignment of authorship to the Gospels? In fact, I'm believe he specifically favors the idea that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness.

"What makes you think it is "generally reliable about the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus?" You must have a good reason."

I have many good reasons. In fact, I've frequently posted them on this website. Indeed, some are listed above.

This notion that apparent, or alleged, contradictions automatically disproves the notion that the gospels rest on eyewitness testimony is rather uninformed. Any cop or attorney involved in a trial will tell you that it is rare that eyewitness testimony is 100% the same.

I've recently reviewed the police report for a rather simple battery claim with 6 witnesses. 2 were defendants, 2 were victims, and 2 were independents. Their witness statements give a pretty good idea of what happened, hopefully sufficient for a conviction, but there are apparent contradictions. Moreover, there are even apparent contradictions between the 2 defendants, the 2 victims, and the 2 independents (who were standing right next to each other).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Probably not. Because I do not believe in tooth fairies.

I don't believe the absurdities in the JC Bible for the same reason you don't believe in tooth fairies. No one is accusing you having presuppositions about the existence of tooth fairies. Why accuse others of this simply because they would like more than faith?

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: Probably not. Because I do not believe in tooth fairies. I don't believe the absurdities in the JC Bible for the same reason you don't believe in tooth fairies. No one is accusing you having presuppositions about the existence of tooth fairies. Why accuse others of this simply because they would like more than faith? rodahi

You seemed to have missed the rest of my explanation. Perhaps it will help if I repeat it:

"However, if my neighbor was not one who normally made these kinds of claims, I would suspect something was up. Moreover, if four or five other people separately confirmed that there were strange beings in his house, then I would get even more suspicious. And if, while telling me what was going on, my neighbor admitted something embarassing (like they appeared as he was committing adultery), then I would suspect he wasn't making this up for his benefit. And finally, if he persisted in claiming such things, despite the fact that other neighbors accused him of being a heretic and started beating him up, then I would get off my butt, turn off the tv, and check out what was going on at his house."



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 14, 2001).]

rodahi:
"There is strong evidence that the writer of Luke embellished (i.e., created fictional material) Mark."

Prove it.

I will give a single example from many:

Mark 16:2-5

"And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to one another, 'Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?' And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back--for it was very large. And entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed."

Luke 24:1-6

"But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were frightened they bowed their faces to the ground."

Based on a straightforward reading of both texts, the latter writer embellished the former. For the "young man...dressed in a white robe" has been changed to "two men...in dazzling apparel." Also, the "young man" was sitting down and the "two men (angels)" appeared out of nowhere, standing up. It is easy to see that the second writer wished to make the scene more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the first had. This is fiction.

rodahi

LOL.

Long white robe to dazzaling apparel.

Sitting to standing.

If this is the worst you can do I'm not worried. My faith doesn't rest on the clothes the angels wore or whether the angel was sitting or standing. And I don't think I'd classify "dazzaling" instead of "white" fiction, even if Luke has embellished, as much as I would classify it as a characterization.

Moreover, Luke uses much less of Mark than does Matthew. He has independent traditions regarding much of Jesus' life, including the Passion Narrative and the resurrection. To be fair, I can't remember off the top of my head whether the discovery of the empty tomb by the women is one of those. I'll have to check it out.

And you ignored my comments in the previous posting.

Your qualifications are not relevant, unless you are saying you would think that because of the strange goings on next door that tooth fairies could exist, and you would like to investigate them.

If I heard noises coming from the house next door, I might become curious enough to find out if someone was getting hurt. But, I would not go investigate if my neighbor had simply said his house was being invaded by tooth fairies.


rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
LOL.

Long white robe to dazzaling apparel.

Sitting to standing.

LOL. You said "prove it," so I did.

If this is the worst you can do I'm not worried. My faith doesn't rest on the clothes the angels wore or whether the angel was sitting or standing. And I don't think I'd classify "dazzaling" instead of "white" fiction, even if Luke has embellished, as much as I would classify it as a characterization.

I am just pointing out that your faith is not dependent on textual evidence. The evidence clearly shows that Luke embellished Mark. NOTHING is going to change your faith.


rodahi

Which statement did I ignore?

Let me put it as simple as possible for you. I stated that I would be skeptical, but if the situation I outlined had followed up my neighbor's claim, then I would investigate. That situation, indepenent attestation, embarrasing claims, perseverance in claims despite persecution, is comparable to the claims of the New Testament.

I would only add that I find the Anthropic Principle to be evidence for the existence of a god, or at least the possibility for the existence of a god.

Sure somethings could change my faith. But not whether the angel wore a white robe or dazzaling attire. My faith actually rests to a great extent on the evidence in the New Testament.

My faith, however, is not that the Bible is inerrant. My faith is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The fact that Luke may have thought that dazzaling attire was more persuasive than a long white robe doesn't lead me to believe that he viewed his sources as so much historical playdough. And that is even assuming that they are relying on the same tradition for the description of the angel at the tomb.