reniaa

But it is obvious though that christian leaders/writers from the 1st and second century had no problem with the authenticity of the gospels as we do now, a strong knowledge of people places and were they were written?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias

eusibius from what i've read is a good solid source of early history info,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

shouldn't that alone go towards the provenance of the gospels?

the facts are that it would for any other book as my previous source mentioned?

Solitary Man

What garbage. I must intervene here. First, the emperors aren't kings. Second, there were kings in the Roman empire. Third, it's poor exegetical technique to to assume that Polycarp wouldn't talk about the past like it was still in the present, as it has been done many times over. Epistle of Hebrews talks about the Temple as if it were standing, as do the Rabbis in the Talmud. Finally, even if Polycarp was referring to the emperors, emperors came and went. There wasn't only one emperor until Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, there were dozens, starting with Augustus there were over a dozen until you get to the co-emperors.

Roger Pearse

Yes? So?

This appears to be argument by insinuation. Don't do this. Say what you have to say -- why should we have to guess what your argument is?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Just read the Bible. It is obvious that aLuke and aMatthew copied gMark - they lifted complete sentences. A modern university would run their work through some software and flag it as plagiarism.

But they didn't just copy, they corrected errors or changed a few details, in order to change the theological import. This tells me that aLuke and aMatthew did not in fact think that Mark was reporting history; he was writing a story, and they felt free to rewrite it.

And then the early church put those three gospels plus one other into the canon. Do you think they were too stupid to realize that there were differences? That Luke and Matthew give different geneologies for Jesus? I think this is a very strong indication that early Christians did not think that the gospels were plain fact. They represented some higher "truth," but not ordinary, mundane facts.

There's nothing blissful about this. It's just common sense. Modern fundamentalists who engage in bibliolatry have invented a new way of reading the Bible that does violence to its origins.

Roger Pearse

I indicated that the position taken was unlikely to be based on scholarship, even if advocated by scholars, because of the nature of the topic.

I also queried the assertion that the consensus of scholarship actually held that view. Pardon me if that seems rude, but I don't find in fora like this that such statements can be trusted to be based on more than one or two books.

The term 'tradition' is a bit of a weasel word in these sorts of contexts, unfortunately (I know that *you* are not weaselling but repeating what you have read -- I've seen it used too). The term is intended to imply unreliable folk-tradition without actually saying so. But this is not how we obtain knowledge about these matters, is it? -- we are reliant on the ancient authors.

The use of the term 'tradition' then presumes that the ancient authors were not accurately informed. This, of course, begs the question.

Well... connection (he says cautiously).

These sorts of assertions fly around, don't they? But I am very aware that a century ago similar arguments were used to date the gospels to the late 2nd century -- a position that was trashed by one small slip of papyrus -- and that the archaeological discoveries of the last century demolished a great deal of similar "assured results of modern scholarly investigation". Biblical studies is not a field in which I feel much confidence, I'm afraid.

I really don't care strongly for all this type of argument. We can learn things from internal evidence, so long as we don't get carried away. Once what we suppose to be the 'internal evidence' starts to contradict what the external evidence says, we need to be very careful. Ten to one the 'internal evidence' is actually merely a deduction, and not evidence at all.

That doesn't seem related to my point ('who knows' is the answer -- do we care?). If the accounts disagree, surely that works *against* dependence?

I always appreciate your considered approach.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't get very bogged down in arguments about the NT -- I came to view much of biblical studies as bogus a long time ago, and to prefer a more sceptical, less revisionist and entirely data-driven approach to history. I just happened to see reniaa post some stuff which I knew would turn into a slag-fest of strawmen and thought I would divert the argument onto more solid grounds.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Note: reniaa copied this from someone who cribbed the arguments from Wrong. We have no writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves. I think this is a reference to Papias, who is the first in a chain that is claimed to go back to the apostles, but what we know of him does not include citations from the gospels.

Wrong. Ordinary historians look to handwriting, language, etc. Not rumors and theology.

This shows that the gospels were around in the mid second century. This does nothing to establish authenticity. And I believe that Clement of Rome quotes some words in Matthew, but does not mention Matthew.

Ignatius is hard to date, and there are allusions to some gospel language - but no quotes from the gospels, and no mention of these gospels.

I doubt this, but don't have time to research it. There are a number of John's, who tend to get confused.

Papias refers to gospels in a way that does not fit the particular gospels we have. It is not clear what he refers to. Justin Martyr does quote the gospels, around 150 CE.

In short, this is 18th century apologetics.

spin

Don't froth at the mouth. It's unbecoming.

God you really say such silly crap sometimes. What were local princes called in the second century?

It might serve if you had first read the text. Do try. You might be surprised. It might even give you some, aah, context.

How does that relate to an admonition to pray for various powerful people in the empire?? It doesn't of course. And you should have known better.

Doh! You don't admonish people to pray for kings, potentates and princes or even people who persecute you if you are referring to the past without indicating you are in fact referring to the past. You should have looked at the context.

Back to old tricks, I see. Bye [SM]. :wave:


spin

Timetospend

In other words, you have no objective data to support your assertions, only opinion...this is as I thought...sounds blissful to me.

In your new statement, you have omitted those parts where Luke and Matthew have commonality but not where Mark does not. It should be easy to speculate how to reconcile that.

In your original statement, you have not supported:
-The original writers knew that they were writing contradictions.
-The original writers knew that the gospels were not inerrant.
-The original writers knew that the gospels were not based on fact.
Perhaps the best one is where you claim that they knew that future generations would know that "they were dealing with theological works, which modern people would label 'fiction.'" Perhaps, you believe that the original writers had a time machine.

Frankly these assertions are not provable. Therefore, conclusions drawn from them must also be suspect.

From my original post to you, I indicated that I was not ignoring your statement concerning that there were contradictions in the Bible. My questions concern your unprovable, unverifiable comments that the original writers "knew" that they were contradictions, plus the other things that they "knew."

I understand that your positions denies the authority of the Bible, but again that this not what I was questioning.

Thanks,

Roger Pearse

Doesn't it come from Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp personally?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The idea that historians do not look to citations and statements of authorship when attributing ancient texts sounds strange. Do you really mean to say this? You mention 'handwriting' -- but no literary text is extant in autograph before the 13th century, as far as I know, so this can't be a factor unless I completely misunderstand. As for language, I presume that you mean stylistic questions. This is so, but very subjective indeed.

Eusebius quotes this passage from him with respect to the gospels, and Eusebius had the full text before him.

In what respect?

All the best,

Roger Pearse