[QUOTE]Originally posted by Opus1:
[b]Metacrock wrote:
Metacrock wrote:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a completely unfounded assetion. first, many writtings of chruch fathers are well before the second century. Papias wrote around 130 and he knew eye witnesses both aposltes and others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read anything I wrote?

Mtea =>I wonder if you read what you wrote. One might question that by reading the next sentence:

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clment of Rome wrote in 95 he knew Peter and Paul.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously not. We're talking about gospel authorship. I am well aware that we have an epistle from Clement that dates to 96 CE. But it does not mention the name of any gospels.

MEta =>You said the Apostolic f, wrote in the second century. That's what I was responding to. Clement quotes from Matthew and John, he doens't name them as authors but that's not important. I was talking about the atuhority of the texts, that is not dependent upon who actaully wrote them. It is dependent upon their early existence and their acceptence within the community.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignatious probably wote around 110, Hegesipeus was in the first part of the second century. Polycarp was writing in the first half.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do any of them mention gospel authors by name?

Meta =>Ignatious does. But again, I'm not concerned with arguing for the authorship of the namesakes. I'm arging for the authority of the texts through authorship of the community.The community was the author.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of these figures were any more related to the Pauline chruch than to the Johonnie, in fact Ignatious' writtings bear plain marks of the Johonnie school.And so what if they were Pauline? That is merely the genetic fallacy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you had read the quotes by Sanders, you'll see why this is so important. The winners attached names to the gospels. Gnostics believed that Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Do you?


Meta =>Winner? That applys to conflict between ORthodox and Gnostic not between Johonnine and Pauline. You can't show there was enough tension between the Jerusalem chruch and the Pauline chruch to warrent any conclusion that would argue for changes in meaning or suppression of other sources. That is merely the Wellhausen thing, it is too HEgellian to take seriously.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why detective work when they have people who knew the principles?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, please read what I wrote. It is highly unlikely that people knew the disciples but did not attach any names to the gospels until the middle of the 2nd century.


Meta -=>PLease read what I wrote, because you are missing the point. First of all, they dont' have to be the very namesakes. Any eye witness will do. If the Elder John that Papias knew was a young man in 33 and Papias was old in 130 he could well have known him. He could also have known the Apostles he mentions, do the math! If he was 80 in 130 (and Polycarp was 80 when he died) than he would have been 20 in AD 50. It is totally Plausible that Apostles were alive in AD 50 as we know Peter and Paul were!!!

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senica lived to be 80. Its wasn't that uncommon. And the earliest references do not come 50 years latter. Paul is the earilest and he was wrtting only 20 years after. Good evidence suggests that the first writing of the Gospel, the per-markan passion narrative was compossed just 18 years after the original. (see Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels, also Crossan agrees with that).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! One person living to 80 totally disproves my entire argument. Good one metacrock!

MEta =>that's a silly conclusion! You are the one who has pinned the argument on one guy not living long enough. You can't argue that Papias wouldn't be old enough to know the Apostles and than turn around and dismiss it when I prove he could have been. and it doesn't just go for him. Clemnt knew themn and others as well.

And once again, do you have any clue what you're talking about? Where does Paul mention the name of any gospel writer?


Meta =>So since you can't see the obvious I'll have to point it out! I'm talking about John wirtting John or Mark writting Mark. cause i myself don't even believe that! I'm talking about the content being historically turst worthy ok?Well sorry if I didn't make myself more clear!
quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with that is that they wouldt just buy into some analymous Gospel. They wouldnt' just accept anything, that's what Bishops were for. They used a net work and they hd to have the Bishops approaval to read in chruch any work claiming to be of a spiritual nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

People wouldn't accept anonymous gospels, huh? Funny, my Bible has Judges, Kings, Chronicles, and Hebrews. People didn't have any problems accepting anonymous texts. And once again, read Sanders' quote about the value of anonymous texts in the ancient world.


Meta =>Ok take a deep breath. get a sip of coffee, work the little brain cells, they had backing of an athority! They had the tradition behind them to say "this is the text we follow!" it doens't matter that John didn't write John, as long as the one who did had access to the facts. and that can be born out! that's what I'm arguing.
quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
They made compies and sent them to all the chruches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but this didn't happen until the early-middle 2nd century (at least with Paul's letters).


MEta =>There's no textual evidence of radically differnt versions or other copies being suppressed. And it did happen before that too. Paul says "copy this and send it to the other guys." I forget which epislte that's in but you can see that begining. Besides in Pauls day the cirlce was so small they probably knew who everyone was and didn't need to do that.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papias tells us he knew Aposotles and he knew other disciples not because he was investigating authorship, but because he wanted to hear first hand, he prefurred the sopken word, that's what he tells us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eusebius, quoting a copy of Papias, two centuries later tells us this. And Papias interviewed the followers of the original disciples, not the disciples themselves:


MEta =>As I pointed out we have fragments of the text itself, not from Eusbius but the actual text from Papias, and they include the bit about knowing the Apostoles.


quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels.

MEta =>It's not second hand if Papias knew the actual witnesses. which is his clear implication. He did claim to be a disciple of the elders, that is totally dependent upon interpriting the text in a certain way. Evne if it is ture, he spoke with "an elder" who knew Peter, that's still not that far removoed. What does that do to the data? You think the elder who knew Peter will tell Papias something totally wrong? Based upon what?

------------------------------------------------------------------------


(from: http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html)

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't know John when he was Bishop, but when he was a young man, whicih would have been in the AD 80s. Moerove I doubt that John wrote John, that doens' mean it wasn't an eye witness.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aarrgh! This is what we're arguing about in the first place! Please tell this to Tercel, who is absolutely certain that the four gospels were written by the men whose names they bear!


Meta => His problem.

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited March 23, 2001).]

Why shoiuld we have to prove the authorship? The early church fathers attested to the authorship, lets e you disprove that?

I don't defend the authorship of Matt, Mark and John, but what about Luke? Give me a good reason to assume that Luke didn't write Luke?


Actually there is good reason to assume that all the Snyoptics have the authority of their namesakes. I thnk it is more probable that they weren't writeen by the namesakes, except for Luke becasue I have no good reason to assume otherwise. But he wasn't an eye witness anyway, and there is tons of good evidence that whoever wrote it did consult with witnesses. So what is the reaon for doubting the veraicty of the texts?

Christians in the fourth century were saying a lot of things. Which one are we to believe? For example, this is what another Christian (Faustus) said, according to Augustine:
"It is not without reason that we bring a critical judgment to the study of Scriptures where there are such discrepancies and contradictions. By thus examining everything, and comparing one passage with another, we determine which contains Christ's actual words, and what may or may not be genuine. For your predecessors have made many interpolations in the words of our Lord, which thus appear under His name, while they disagree with His doctrine. Besides, as we have proved again and again, the writings are not the production of Christ or of His apostles, but a compilation of rumors and beliefs, made, long after their departure, by some obscure semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and published by them under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the followers of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority to all these blunders and falsehoods." Contra Faustum Manichaeum 33.3

The vast majority of critical scholars agree with Faustus. They disagree with Peter of Alexandria and Augustine.

rodahi

Meta: ...The Evangelical camp is convenced, as Chruch history records, that the Gospels were either written by eye witnesses (Matt. John) or by those who knew eye witnesses (Luke, Mark). Mark is suppossedly the testimony of Peter distilled to Mark, his interpriter.

Be that as it may, what is certrain is that oral tradition is not heresay! It is merely an oral record. This in no way means that they were just spreading rumors.

"Hearsay" and "oral tradition" are identical. If one person tells another person something about a third party, that is hearsay. It is also information orally transmitted. This applies to stories, rumors, myths, etc.


The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.

True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.

This means that these stories were subjected to the community all the time, perhaps in group seesions. It is highly likely that each community has living in it many eye witnesses. So the record, though oral, was still subjected to the criticism of those who were there. The community was the author and the community witnessed the events.

You presume the events must have been taken to be historical when it is evident that much of the NT is theological in intent. You don't need eyewitnesses to confirm or spread theology. Who would question something meant to be theologically edifying?

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 24, 2001).]

Rodahi, you might notice in the quote from Faustus that even he accepts that the originals were published WITH the author's name. He does dispute the truthfulness of these 'titles', but not the titles themselves. Faustus, then, is evidence that the gospels were NOT published anonymously:

"Besides, as we have proved again and again, the writings are not the production of Christ or of His apostles, but a compilation of rumors and beliefs, made, long after their departure, by some obscure semi-Jews, not in harmony even with one another, and published by them under the name of the apostles, or of those considered the followers of the apostles, so as to give the appearance of apostolic authority to all these blunders and falsehoods." Contra Faustum Manichaeum 33.3

Meta: rodahi is correct on this one. Jesus gathered to himself disciples for the express purpose that they would be eyewitnesses to what he did and said. The apostles themselves grounded their message in history- they actually saw these things and delivered that eyewitness testimony to the bishops in the churches they established. If this is not the case, WHICH IT IS, then the scriptures fall as falsehoods unworthy of our hearing. But as it is, the case can be made that the eyewitnesses themselves (John, Matthew, Peter) wrote down for us what they saw and heard and touched AND this message conforms to the oral message they delivered to the churches.

Metacrock:
Why shoiuld we have to prove the authorship? The early church fathers attested to the authorship, lets e you disprove that?

First of all, who is "we?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Please don't say that you speak for all Christians because you obviously do not. Second, those who say they KNOW who wrote the anonymous NT narratives are the ones who must "prove" authorship. Third, the "early church fathers" did not attest to authorship, unless by the word "early" you mean those who conjectured after 150 CE.

I don't defend the authorship of Matt, Mark and John, but what about Luke? Give me a good reason to assume that Luke didn't write Luke?

Apparently, there are scholars who have good reason to think the writer of Luke/Acts was not "Luke."

"Somewhere in the Aegean, around 120 C.E., a great two-volume work appeared that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called Acts of the Apostles. As with the other narrative gospels, we do not know anything about the author except what can be inferred from the writing itself. Later in the second century, the work was attributed to Luke, the co-worker of Paul (mentioned in Philemon 24; Col. 4:14; and 2 Tim. 4:11), just as other anonymous literature from earlier times was attributed to either the apostles or their companions in order to validate their truth." Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, P. 167

"Nothing is said about the Gospel of Luke in the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis which are preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. But it is widely attested that just before the middle of the 2d century Marcion used this Gospel as the basis for his edition of Christian Scripures. The report about Marcion's use of Luke appears for the first time in Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE)...Thus the Gospel of Luke, perhaps written as late as the first decades of the 2d century, became the first Gospel ever to be elevated to something that could be called 'canonical status,' albeit in its revised Marcionite edition. Apart from the use of Luke by Marcion, there is no certain evidence for its usage before the middle of the 2d century." Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 334

"I find myself forced to feel that the lack of exact knowledge of the details of Paul's career even in the period during which the author of the 'We passages' was with him and the evident readiness to transform and rewrite his sources of information in the light of his philosophy of history exclude the author from having been a companion of Paul, who penned the diary notes. Rather the author used various sources from which he produced his writing [Luke/Acts]. One of them was a series of entries, quite fragmentary in extent, from a diary of an erstwhile travel companion, which he skilfully utilizes, choosing, for reasons about which we can raise guesses but can never know, to preserve the personal 'we' touch." Morton Enslin, Christian Beginnings, P. 419

"Were the books [Luke/Acts] written by one of Paul's companions, even if we don't know the name of this person? The most important thing to say is that even if they were, this would provide no guarantee of their historical accuracy. We have no way of knowing how long this alleged companion of Paul was with him, whether he knew him well, or, if he did know him well, whether he presented him accurately and fairly. Actually, this final statement is not altogether true--for there is one way of determining whether the portrayal of Paul in Acts is accurate and fair; we can compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about Paul. Unfortunately, when we do so, a number of discrepancies of detail, such as where Paul was at certain times and with whom, and broader discrepancies in the actual teachings of Paul." Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, P. 130

"Since it is simply unthinkable to regard the character of the Gospel of Luke as standing close to the theology of Paul, from here on the tradition of Luke as the author of the third Gospel can only be questioned." Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, P. 104

Actually there is good reason to assume that all the Snyoptics have the authority of their namesakes. I thnk it is more probable that they weren't writeen by the namesakes, except for Luke becasue I have no good reason to assume otherwise. But he wasn't an eye witness anyway, and there is tons of good evidence that whoever wrote it did consult with witnesses. So what is the reaon for doubting the veraicty of the texts?

There is good reason to doubt the veracity of the narratives because the writers wrote theology, not history.

"[Luke] raises problems for the modern man in search of 'historicity' by adopting the first-century custom of inventing speeches or modifying the accounts of events." Howard Clark Kee, Understanding the New Testament, P. 297

"Luke is a delightful story-teller, and is quite wasted on the dull people who mistake him for a grave, accurate, and diligent historian." Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, The Origins of Christianity, P. 98

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 24, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by irenaeus:
Rodahi, you might notice in the quote from Faustus that even he accepts that the originals were published WITH the author's name. He does dispute the truthfulness of these 'titles', but not the titles themselves. Faustus, then, is evidence that the gospels were NOT published anonymously

What we have in Faustus is a late fourth century Christian who thinks the narratives were not written by those whose names have been assigned to them. There MUST be a reason why he thinks this. Care to discuss that issue?

Also, Faustus' commentary DOES NOT provide evidence the narratives were originally published with names on them. It ONLY provides evidence that names had been assigned to them by the time he commented--over 300 years AFTER the autographs were written.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by irenaeus:
Meta: rodahi is correct on this one.

What is it that I am "correct on?" You didn't say.

Jesus gathered to himself disciples for the express purpose that they would be eyewitnesses to what he did and said.

This is incorrect. Jesus chose disciples to help him spread the message that the End was near.

The apostles themselves grounded their message in history- they actually saw these things and delivered that eyewitness testimony to the bishops in the churches they established.

This is nothing but Christian propaganda.

If this is not the case, WHICH IT IS, then the scriptures fall as falsehoods unworthy of our hearing.

The NT contains Christian propaganda. The intent of every writer was to persuade hearers to believe that Jesus was the messiah and son of Yahweh.

But as it is, the case can be made that the eyewitnesses themselves (John, Matthew, Peter) wrote down for us what they saw and heard and touched AND this message conforms to the oral message they delivered to the churches.

This is MORE Christian propaganda. NO ONE KNOWS with certainty what Jesus' disciples saw or heard, for they, like Jesus, wrote nothing.

rodahi

[Metacrock:]
Jesus was not unloving to the fig tree. What difference does that make? One does not love temproal things.

Jesus magically cursed and killed a fig tree. See Mk. 11:12-14; 11:20-21. Do loving men use their magic to kill plants?


[Metacrock:]
It is not unloving to prune a fig tree.
[LP:]
Which is not the same as saying "Nobody will ever eat figs from you again!!!" when discovering an absence of figs, and supposedly killing that tree as a result.


METa: That's not unloving either. Have you ever seen the flowers in front of a sky scrapper? Do you know that most gardening services rip those up and instal new ones every month, dependeing on wheather they want to change the "corlor bed." Why don't you protest that? start a group for the rights of plants?

You missed the point! Jesus magically cursed and killed a defenseless fig tree simply because it had no figs. BTW, he also magically killed a couple of thousand defensless pigs.


[Metacrock:]
God is not unloving to people in hell Jesus even went there to preach to them so they would have a changce (another detail found in two non-canonical Gospels and mentioned in Peter).
[LP:]
Not the impression that one would get from the Gospels, where JC seems to enjoy the thought of people suffering in Hell.


Meta: That's your own subjective imagination. I've never gotten that sense. what passage?

Then you haven't been paying attention, Meta.

"Then he began to insult the towns where he had performed most of his miracles, because they had not changed their ways: 'Damn you, Chorazin! Damn you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have (sat) in sackcloth and ashes and changed their ways long ago. So I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgement day than you. And you, Capernaum, you don't think you'll be exalted to heaven, do you? No, you'll go to Hell. Because if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, Sodom would still be around. So I tell you, the land of Sodom will be better on judgement day than you.'" (Mt. 11:2-24)

[Metacrock:]
Jesus wasn't unloving to anyone. The examples of righteious anger you mention were just!

The term "righteous anger" is an oxymoron. Jesus expressed anger at his family, fellow Judeans, and, at times, his disciples, e.g., "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters...he cannot be a disciple of mine." (Lk. 14:26); "And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'" (Mk. 3:33); "Don't get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof." (Mt. 10:34-36); "And looking right at them with anger, exasperated at their obstancy, he says to the fellow, 'Hold out your hand!' (Mk. 3:5); "Although Jesus was indignant, he stretched out his hand, touched hime, and says to him, 'Okay--your clean!'...And Jesus [again] snapped at him, and dismissed him curtly..." (Mk. 1:41-43).

He was extremely difficult to get along with-- probably because he thought too highly of himself, e.g., "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me." These sound like the words of a megalomaniac.


[LP:]
Says who? Some of the rhetoric is remarkably intemperate.

MEta: Says who? Its your argument! Give some examples, back it up, it's not my burden of proof.

See above.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 24, 2001).]