Freethought & Rationalism Archive

boneyard bill · 08-13-2001, 04:35 AM

turtonm

Quote:

Goulder has since rejected the ideas of his which Spong utilized in writing his book on the gospels. Unfortunately I do not know where to find an article on that.

Thanks for the info, but does he reject the claim that the gospels are midrash or that the passion really took place at tabernacles? So far as I know, these claims are unconnected. May be rejects both. Hopefully somebody will come up with the answer.

boneyard bill · 08-13-2001, 04:37 AM

turtonm

Quote:

Goulder has since rejected the ideas of his which Spong utilized in writing his book on the gospels. Unfortunately I do not know where to find an article on that.

Thanks for the info, but does he reject the claim that the gospels are midrash or that the passion really took place at tabernacles? So far as I know, these claims are unconnected. May be rejects both. Hopefully somebody will come up with the answer.

boneyard bill · 08-13-2001, 04:55 AM

Toto

Quote:

Your argument seems to come down to your assertion that if people had invented the details of Jesus' life, they could have done a better job of it.

That point might apply to my first argument regarding Galilee. My final argument asks why anyone would create two fictitious accounts and then conflate them? If Goulder has rejected this claim, of course, this argument falls.

My second and third arguments ask how people writing after the fall of Jerusalem could have know accurateinformation. One of those has fallen or been badly damaged. Josephus mentions Caiaphus.

The other remains, how did they know there was a mortuary outside the walls when a new wall had been constructed to effectively place the alleged burial place of Jesus inside the city walls?

I'll keep working on this. It only took a few minutes to come up with these objections. Maybe I can find more with a little work.

Vorkosigan · 08-13-2001, 06:50 AM

That point might apply to my first argument regarding Galilee. My final argument asks why anyone would create two fictitious accounts and then conflate them?

Doherty and the other mythicists, such as Ellegard, in Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ base their ideas on the extraordinary silence about Jesus in the 1st century writings. Few details of his life are given, and not at all about his ministry. The first stories of this we meet are in the gospels.

Obviously the gospels are built up out of various strands of materials. Luke, for example, used Mark, a source generally called Q, and perhaps others.

The gospelers did not so much invent stories as conflate stories (with the exception of Mark, whom I believe invented many of his stories) from different origins or groups. This is one reason Jesus is different for each writer; they had different stories for the basis, and they wrote for different audiences.

The stories they drew on appear to have developed in the first century from a number of different sources. The "fictions" they have were not their own creation, but passed down to them from other sources.

If you are interested in learning more about this, you might try a good conservative book like Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. Brown does not mention the mythicist case, so you might like something more robust like Ehrman's textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, which covers the non-Canonical gospels in a much better way, and gives a better view of the early Christian communities.

My second and third arguments ask how people writing after the fall of Jerusalem could have know accurateinformation. One of those has fallen or been badly damaged. Josephus mentions Caiaphus.

I do not understand why this is a problem. Josephus writing in the 90s, with the help of documents, witness, his own experiences and support from the Imperial Archives, would have had an easy time of it to remember such things. I am sure you can name all the Presidents back to McKinley, for example, although it might be hazy after that. Finding out details of Jerusalem would not have been hard -- after all, Josephus had actually been there before it was destroyed.

Many ancient Historians wrote accurately about things that happened before their time.

Michael

Nomad · 08-13-2001, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:

Doherty and the other mythicists, such as Ellegard, in Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ base their ideas on the extraordinary silence about Jesus in the 1st century writings. Few details of his life are given, and not at all about his ministry. The first stories of this we meet are in the gospels.

Well, since the Gospels are first Century documents, what are you talking about here Michael?

Quote:

The stories they drew on appear to have developed in the first century from a number of different sources. The "fictions" they have were not their own creation, but passed down to them from other sources.

What is your evidence for these other sources?

Nomad

P.S. To Bill, I hope, in your post, that you are not suggesting that Josephus served as the source for the Gospel writers. If so, I would love to see how you have made this connection. Thanks.

Ron Garrett · 08-13-2001, 12:43 PM

Offa posts:

Quote:

The gospel ofJohn
was written first and this book was completed before 37 CE.

I'd love to see the source for this early dating of the Gospel of John.

Leopold Fonck's aritcle in the Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the dating arguments I've heard and which seem most reasonable.

Quote:

General opinion seems to be 96CE or one of the succeeding years. The grounds for this opinion are briefly as follows:

1. it was written after the death of Peter, since the last chapter - especially xxi, 18-19 presupposes his death;

2.it was also written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, for the Evangelist's references to the Jews (cf. particularly xi, 18; xviii, 1; xix, 41) seem to indicate that the end of the city and of the people as a nation is already come;

3.the text of xxi, 23, appears to imply that John was already far advanced in years when he wrote the Gospel;

4.those who denied the Divinity of Christ, the very point to which St. John devotes special attention throughout his Gospel, began to disseminate their heresy about the end of the first century;

5.finally, we have direct evidence concerning the date of composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel: "He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos". The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of Domitian's reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his death (18 September, 96), the emperor had discontinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xx, nn. 5-7).

This evidence would therefore refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

Toto · 08-13-2001, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>
. . .Nomad

P.S. To Bill, I hope, in your post, that you are not suggesting that Josephus served as the source for the Gospel writers. If so, I would love to see how you have made this connection. Thanks.</STRONG>

The connection between Luke and Josephus was made by Steve Mason and is summarized by Richard Carrier here.

Vorkosigan · 08-13-2001, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Nomad:
What is your evidence for these other sources?

Nomad

We can disagree over whether the gospels are first-century documents. If they are, I believe they are probably very late first century, after 90. In any case I was referring to documents outside the gospels.

As for the evidence of other sources in the gospels, although exactly what form these other sources take is controversial, it is widely agreed that other sources, such as the famous Q, were incorporated into the narratives created by the writers of the gospels. Since you already know this, I do not understand why you have asked this question, unless you meant it in a sense that I do not understand.

Michael

Nomad · 08-13-2001, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:

The connection between Luke and Josephus was made by Steve Mason and is summarized by Richard Carrier here.

I already know about this speculation Toto, and have heard it proposed that Josephus used Luke. To me is seems highly improbable that either knew of the other.

In any case, this is not Bill's claim. He is saying that the Gospels derived their accurate historical information about Palestine from Josephus, and I would like to know how he knows this.

Nomad

Nomad · 08-13-2001, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:

We can disagree over whether the gospels are first-century documents. If they are, I believe they are probably very late first century, after 90. In any case I was referring to documents outside the gospels.

Fair enough on referring to documents outside of the Gospels Michael, but quite frankly, we don't have anything from the 1st Century outside of the Gospels and Josephus where would expect to find Jesus even mentioned. You might as well ask why George Washington is not mentioned in every single history of the United States.

As to your beliefs on the dating of the Gospels, I would love to hear your defense of 90AD+ dating of these documents. I started a thread on this topic a number of months ago, and have not seen you comment on it. You can find it under Redating the Books of the New Testament. Layman also did an excellent presentation in defense of Luke/Acts being from the 1st Century in his thread The case for dating the Book of Acts to the mid-second century. Your participation on either of these threads (or a new one if you so choose) would be welcome.

Quote:

As for the evidence of other sources in the gospels, although exactly what form these other sources take is controversial, it is widely agreed that other sources, such as the famous Q, were incorporated into the narratives created by the writers of the gospels.

Yes, I am aware of Q and such. What arguments do you find most compelling in believing that they did exist, and in what form?

I am most interested in learning how you have formed your beliefs Michael. If you accept the existence of Q as being probable, then I would like to understand why you accept this. If you believe that the Gospels are 2nd Century creations, I would like to understand your reasoning and evidence.

That is why I ask my questions.

Be well,

Nomad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2001, 06:50 AM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	That point might apply to my first argument regarding Galilee. My final argument asks why anyone would create two fictitious accounts and then conflate them? Doherty and the other mythicists, such as Ellegard, in Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ base their ideas on the extraordinary silence about Jesus in the 1st century writings. Few details of his life are given, and not at all about his ministry. The first stories of this we meet are in the gospels. Obviously the gospels are built up out of various strands of materials. Luke, for example, used Mark, a source generally called Q, and perhaps others. The gospelers did not so much invent stories as conflate stories (with the exception of Mark, whom I believe invented many of his stories) from different origins or groups. This is one reason Jesus is different for each writer; they had different stories for the basis, and they wrote for different audiences. The stories they drew on appear to have developed in the first century from a number of different sources. The "fictions" they have were not their own creation, but passed down to them from other sources. If you are interested in learning more about this, you might try a good conservative book like Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. Brown does not mention the mythicist case, so you might like something more robust like Ehrman's textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, which covers the non-Canonical gospels in a much better way, and gives a better view of the early Christian communities. *My second and third arguments ask how people writing after the fall of Jerusalem could have know accurateinformation. One of those has fallen or been badly damaged. Josephus mentions Caiaphus.* I do not understand why this is a problem. Josephus writing in the 90s, with the help of documents, witness, his own experiences and support from the Imperial Archives, would have had an easy time of it to remember such things. I am sure you can name all the Presidents back to McKinley, for example, although it might be hazy after that. Finding out details of Jerusalem would not have been hard -- after all, Josephus had actually been there before it was destroyed. Many ancient Historians wrote accurately about things that happened before their time. Michael

08-13-2001, 12:59 PM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Originally posted by Nomad: What is your evidence for these other sources? Nomad We can disagree over whether the gospels are first-century documents. If they are, I believe they are probably very late first century, after 90. In any case I was referring to documents outside the gospels. As for the evidence of other sources in the gospels, although exactly what form these other sources take is controversial, it is widely agreed that other sources, such as the famous Q, were incorporated into the narratives created by the writers of the gospels. Since you already know this, I do not understand why you have asked this question, unless you meant it in a sense that I do not understand. Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.