Hello John

With permission, I am going to move the question of authorship of and dating the Gospels to a new thread, since it is going to be way beyond the scope of this one. I hope that is alright with you.

Nomad

Congrats, Nomad, you just got 10 points for brevity. I think I'll frame this one.

Seriously, I doubt I will have much time to participate on any more boards than what I've already appeared on any time soon, and one of my sources covers over 60 pages with this subject, and it would take more time and studying than what I really have time to devote to right now to be able to cover it in the depth I would like.

But I appreciate the suggestion, and it probably does deserve another board by itself. I'm afraid I got to find an exit point some where, but I know others would probably take an interest in it as well as have the time.

Thanks for the write.

John

Bede

penatis,

Thsis shows the trouble you get into when you don't check references. You are right that I got the Origen quote from Aquinas so I suppose it doesn't count.

But luckily for me the raising is mentioned by Origen in the Commentary in a different way in book XII, ch42. It is also in two second century fathers, Iraeneus AH XXVIII and Ignatius to the Trallians ch IX. I think that means that the story is very ancient indeed.

I'll be very careful with my references in posts to you in future .

I still think the whole issue is silly though. What other religions have kept their autographs (and I'd mean old religions!).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

John the Atheist:

"...we have Iranaeus saying that Jesus lived to be a very old man living past the age of 50 so he didn?t accept the Gospel accounts of such an early death! This is also Papias sentiments. Iranaeus talks about this in his ?Adversus Haereses Chapter 22."

I haven't read much of Irenaeus, but this particular chapter uses particularly Gnostic terms like Aeons and Pleroma.

Since I don't think Irenaeus had Gnostic beliefs, Gnosticism was a heresy, and his this work is entitled "Adversus Haereses", I would propose that he was discussing Gnostic beliefs.

Bede, you know?

Ish

Ish, Iraneaus was arguing it from his point of view. Not sure how you can get that he was representing what somebody else thought about it.

John

Penatis & Bede:

You guys are doing a great job, and make this BC&A board worth reading.

John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:
penatis,

Thsis shows the trouble you get into when you don't check references. You are right that I got the Origen quote from Aquinas so I suppose it doesn't count.

Agreed!

But luckily for me the raising is mentioned by Origen in the Commentary in a different way in book XII, ch42.

Sorry, Bede, but I had asked for a SPECIFIC reference by a Church Father to Matt. 27:52-53. This one will not suffice. I read Origen's Commentary, Book XII, chapter 42, twice before I noticed the word "resurrection." The Chapter is entitled "The Meaning of the 'Bright Cloud'" and it refers to a bright cloud that is said to have appeared to four of Jesus' disciples while they were on a mountain with Jesus. (See Matt. 17:1-7.) From the chapter, I quote the pertinent sentences from Origen: "Now, I think that God, wishing to dissuade Peter from making three tabernacles, under which so far as it depended on his choice he was going to dwell, shows a tabernacle to overshadow him who is in it, and to shelter him, and the bright cloud overshadowed them, God made, as it were, a diviner tabernacle, inasmuch as it was bright, that it might be to them a pattern of the resurrection to come; for a bright cloud overshadows the just, who are at once protected and illuminated and shone Upon by it."

There is no mention of the following:
1. Jesus' execution
2. Torn curtain
3. Earthquake
4. Opening of tombs
5. Saints coming out of tombs
6. Appearance of dead saints in Jerusalem

All you have is "the resurrection to come" and that simply won't do.


It is also in two second century fathers, Iraeneus AH XXVIII

Sorry, Bede, but I checked Chapter XXVIII in all five of Iraeneus' books from Against Heresies and found no reference to Matt. 27:52-53. Please check again; maybe it is in another book/chapter.


and Ignatius to the Trallians ch IX. I think that means that the story is very ancient indeed.

I checked my source, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, second edition, by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, Editors and Translators/Michael W. Holmes, Editor and Reviser, 1992. The
authenticity and length of some of the letters of Ignatius are disputed; however, I will go with what the book calls a "consensus of sorts" with respect to which letters are considered genuine and which of three recensions is commonly accepted by most of the scholarly community.
That said, the letter of Ignatius to the citizens of Tralles is alluded to by Eusebius (see History of the Church, 3:36), so I see no reason to question its genuiness. There is a problem, though. The recension of the letter to the Trallians (Ch. 9) that is most widely accepted, reads as follows: "Be deaf, therefore, whenever anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth looked on; who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his father raised him up, who--his father, that is--in the same way will likewise also raise us up in christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life."
As you can see, there is nothing that could even remotely be an allusion to Matt. 27:52-53. Furthermore, it is worthy of note that the only extant copy of the so-called middle recension (the most widely accepted) is Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus. It dates to the eleventh century.

I'll be very careful with my references in posts to you in future .

Thanks.

I still think the whole issue is silly though. What other religions have kept their autographs (and I'd mean old religions!).

No, Bede, the issue isn't silly at all. With respect to religious texts that are old and original, see The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. These date from about 2500 BCE and are originals. The sacred texts tell of the ancient Egyptian religion, and experts think the ancient beliefs themselves were old when they were written down.

Ron

[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 11, 2001).]

Damnnnnn....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
[b]

1) Tell us what you think is the best single theological contradiction in the Bible please.[b]

penatis: Nomad needs to define what a "theological contradiction" is.

Nomad: 2) Please explain to us why you think Christians should require the Bible to be treated the way the Qur'an is by Muslims.

I don't require any such thing. Christians can use the JC Bible any way they wish; however, their use of it in no way makes it better or worse than any other religious work.


Nomad: After all, they DO believe that the Qur'an is perfect in every respect (at least in its original Arabic) and even put a sentence of death on Muslim that says otherwise.

Maybe Nomad has a point here, but only he knows precisely what it is.

Nomad: Christians (except for the most radical of fundamentalists) have NEVER made this error. Why should we put our faith in a mere book written by men?

I agree! People should not put their faith in a book.

Nomad: 3) Finish the following sentence please:
The fact that we do not have a complete set of the Canons (as opposed to complete books of both the OT and NT) that is reliably dated to before the 4th Century is important because...

it points to the fact that ALL canons are subject to the whims of arbitrary individuals or groups, not divine inspiration. The whims change over time, i.e., the early canons are not identical to the later ones.

Nomad: 4) Nomad: See what I (and Metzger) mean? It really is an embarrassment of riches, but most non-scholars (at least the sceptical ones) don't seem to appreciate this fact for some reason.

penatis: It is not "an embarrassment of riches." It is a vast amount of MSS that were preserved centuries after the autographs were written.

Nomad: If you want to disagree with Metzger, why did you quote so extensively from him?

Nomad needs to reproduce my complete argument, in context, otherwise I am going to ignore this question. I will say this, though, I disagree with Metzger on some points and agree with him on other points.

Nomad: 5) penatis: Metzger uses the words "empirical evidence." Empirical evidence is not opinion. Take a look at his book.

Nomad: Since you have read it, tell us what empirical evidence you find most convincing.

Again, Nomad needs to reproduce my WHOLE argument, in context. My point was this: empirical evidence is not the same as opinion. BTW, this is not a question; it is an imperative statement.

Nomad: 6) penatis: I don't believe Nomad understands that to a neutral observer, all religious works and their respective associated dogmas have equal value.

Nomad: If a neutral observer looks at the evidence and becomes a believer, then we are to discount his conclusions? Is the reverse also true? Or must one remain neutral forever to be considered "reliable"?

1. Any person has a right to examine any evidence available and come to any conclusions he/she wishes.
2. Nomad needs to explain what the "reverse" of his first statement is.
3. a) A neutral observer is one who approaches history with the goal of attempting to ascertain precisely what actually happened. b) A neutral observer approaches all works, religious or otherwise, with no preconceptions. c) A neutral observer makes every attempt to be as objective as possible.


Nomad: 7) Do you think all, most, or only some of the New Testament is anonymous?

As I have stated numerous times, the gospels are anonymously written. Some of the other NT works are possibly anonymously written, but that was never pertinent to this discussion.

Nomad: What is the hard evidence you use to support your belief?

As I have pointed out numerous times, the gospels were not signed and not one of them indicates by name in its text who wrote it. By definition, all the gospels are anonymous.

Nomad: Do you understand the difference between anonymous ancient texts, and unknowable authorship?

Yes, I do. One must wonder if Nomad knows what "anonymous" means.

Nomad: 8) Why do you claim that we do not know who the author of John's gospel happens to be?

I don't claim anything. No one knows who wrote the anonymous work attributed to a person named "John." If the author were known, the authorship would not be disputed and no scholar would say it is anonymous. Anyone who CLAIMS to KNOW who wrote the fourth gospel, is blowing smoke. Of course, many SPECULATE about who the author MIGHT be, but no one knows.

Nomad: 9) Do you uniformly reject all claims and beliefs you consider to be absurd?

If by "absurd" Nomad is referring to claims and beliefs that dead people have come back to life and appeared to live people, then, yes, I do reject those claims and beliefs. The reason I reject those claims is because there is no evidence that dead people CAN come back to life.

Nomad: Or do you admit that there are things that you simply do not understand, forcing you to rely upon the evidence offered by others (including evidence you do not understand as well due to a lack of expertise on your part)?

I "simply do not understand" why people believe in absurd things without the slightest bit of evidence. It doesn't take an "expert" to know that dead people don't come back to life.

Nomad: 10) Which century do most experts believe the codex was first used? Why is this an important question?

I addressed this question earlier. As I recall, Nomad answered his own question and I acknowledged that fact. However, since he has asked the question again, and since he must not have been happy with his own answer, I will offer this quote from the best "expert" available to me: "Early in the second century (or perhaps even at the close of the first century) the codex, or leaf-form of book, began to come into extensive use in the Church." Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, P. 6.

As to why this question is important to Nomad, I haven't the slightest idea. Perhaps he knows.

[This message has been edited by penatis (edited January 11, 2001).]

Penatis, you say there are no extant MSS dating before 350 A.D. What is your source for this?

Personally, I don't really care whether Matt. 27:52-53 are original or not. I just don't see that it makes a great difference.

That aside, would you provide your source that lists the evidence earlier than 350 A.D. that *does not* contain Matt. 27:52-53 please? I thought that MSS before this date were quite fragmentary. Are there MSS of this particular section of Matt. that do not contain these verses?

I believe Bruce Metzger to be an excellent authority and I have not been able to find any mention of this textual problem in his works. It's not mentioned in The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. It's not mentioned in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. And finally, it's not mentioned in the UBS 4th Ed. Greek New Testament. Metzger doesn't tend to go soft on the NT either. I realize I'm kinda stuck on good 'ol Bruce, so if you know of some other reputable sources, please let me know.

By the way, Penatis, you speak with a lot of authority and knowledge. What is your educational background and why did you spend so much time learning this stuff just to refute the Bible? (perhaps for another thread, but I am very curious)

P.S. - Using the Pyramid Texts as an example of ancient literature that has survived is not a very good one. I suppose that if the NT had been carved out of solid stone inside of a pyramid that went undisturbed for millenia, then we would also still have the originals... Why weren't they written in stone if they were *so* important? I'm going to get slapped, but to me, no absolute proof of the existence of God = Freedom of choice.

Ish