Iasion

Greetings,

There is no evidence any account was by an eye-witness.
Luke certainly does not say so.
Luke does not connect himself with any eye-witnesses.

Luke's sequence is :

1. eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word
2. handers-down (of the events which fulfilled them)
3. others who wrote narratives (based on what was handed down)
4. Luke's narrative (after carefully investigating - presumably the other narratives.)

No eye-witness wrote accounts about Jesus.


Like :
3. the author wrote down what he had heard from others
4. the author wrote down his version of widely known stories
5. the author wrote what he believed was true
6. the author wrote religious mythology
7. the author wrote allegory
8. the author wrote fiction
...


It matters not what a believer feels.
What matters is the evidence.
The evidence does not match your feeling.


Who and when exactly?
You were wrong about Ignatius and Papias before.
Please show the actual evidence of these early quotes.


How early?
Clear and certain quotations of Luke do not start until mid to late 2nd century - generations after the alleged events.

What deception?
Who is claiming a deception ?
Please try to keep up.


What deception?
I didn't claim any deception.
What are you on about?

You seem to think there are only exactly two possibilities :
1. it's all true
2. it's all a deliberate lie.
Not so.

The authors could have believed what they were writing was true without it really being true.
The authors could have been writing religious allegory with no intention of it being taken as true.
Or other possibilities...


Anyway -
Polycarp was not John's disciple.
That's just Christian tradition not supported by the facts.


OK then -
let's imagine the author really was with Paul, just because of the use of a single word (even though Luke no-where actually places himself in the journey's action anywhere.)

So what?
So Luke spent some time with Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul merely had a vision of Jesus, like people do today.
No eye-witnesses there.


I have read Luke carefully.
I see no such claim he is present.
It's your claim - please present your case.


In fact, there are no witnesses to Jesus or the Gospel events at all.

Paul never met Jesus.
The author of G.Mark never met Jesus.
The other Gospels were not written by anyone who met Jesus.
The epistles of James - not written by anyone who met Jesus.
Jude, Peter, John - all written by un-known people who never met Jesus.

In fact, it is the view of modern NT scholars that not one single book in the NT was written by anyone who ever actually met any Jesus.


Luke was scratched off that list long ago (he never met Jesus, at best he travelled with Paul - so what?)

The list has nothing left on it at all now - not one single book is considered to be by a witness to Jesus or the Gospel events.



Iasion

Iasion

Hi,

Yup.

But,
I haven't seen anyone here claim that?

(Oh sorry, not counting MountainMan I mean :-)


Iasion

Equinox

Steve wrote:
Umm, are you honestly describing what I said? I wrote:

Plus, a couple posts later I clarified that with ~150 meaning any time in the 2nd century. Please don’t put claims in my mouth, thank you. If you are not honestly saying what I said, I have to wonder why.


Perhaps a separate thread for the “we” passages would be good (or, even better, finding and reviewing other threads on this – we’ve discussed the “we” passages over and over). Plus, even if authentic, they may be a very short aquiantance (to someone who never saw Jesus alive anyway) – they are a few verses in a book that has nearly 1000 verses.

Well, things don’t always have to be all black or all white. We already know that Luke is commonly inaccurate (Paul’s actions, Quirinius, etc), but of course that doesn’t mean Luke is of no use, either.

Iasion wrote:
Sorry. Point taken.

Have a fun day!

Equinox

sschlichter

Luke 1:2

like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.

Since Luke makes this claim then these options would be a subset of a deception with the exception of #7. This would be a self deception on the part of the reader.

3. the author wrote down what he had heard from others
4. the author wrote down his version of widely known stories
5. the author wrote what he believed was true
6. the author wrote religious mythology
7. the author wrote allegory
8. the author wrote fiction
...


well, it will be difficult to discuss the weight of the evidence without the privilege of expressing my opinion but I will try.


I was not wrong about Ignatius or Papias. I was only wrong if you presuppose that the NT was written after these quotes.

The web site you gave me lays it out pretty well. http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

You are restating the same argument. Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, are earlier than the end of the 2nd century.

actually, you should slow down and think thru what you are saying. some sort of deception is at the root of all of those objections.

If the authors beleived what they were writing and what they were writing is not true then they were deceived. If they did not beleive it and it was not true then they are being deceptive.

If you can take Luke, an obvious historical narrative and claim it be be allegory, then you are deceiving yourself.

There is nothing wrong with the argument of deception. It is a fair argument as well.

Doesn't this claim strike you as odd. I can see not buying into the evidence that is offered to prove that he is. However, are you aware of evidence that proves that he was not that allows you to make the claim that Polycarp was not John's disciple.

I would read it again.

Once again. Here is my claim. I am not asking you to beleive Luke and in this immediate conversation I am not asking you to beleive that Luke existed. I am claiming that the author of Luke claims he provided an orderly account and gives the impression to Theophilus that he was doing so carefully. Argument of allegory are totally unfounded in either Luke or Acts.

In ignoring this fact you are exhibiting great faith in what you beleive to be true. It is such a strong faith that it is prompting you to make up alternate meanings of personal pronouns. you would rather beleive that 'we' could be a fishing term for those other guys than admit something quite innocuos. Ie. that the author is trying to give an impression that he was present and am impression that he discussed these matters with those that were present. In doing so, he was either telling the truth, or was involved in a deception as the perpetrator or the victim.

it is quite a harmless admission.

What would possibly be the outcome of lashing out like this. Do you expect me to discuss each of these statements right now? or were you expecting a series of 'Yes they dids'?

sschlichter

Point taken. I was meaning to express concern over what seemed a practice of rounding up. I think a fair discussion would include the full range of dates and ramifications of both early dates and late dates. The chart did not portray that as accurately as I felt it could have. I tried to couch my concern with an admission of possible paranoia on my part but apparently ineffectively.

I do not feel you were being dishonest at all and did not intend to accuse you of such. My statement was only an attempt to point out what appeared to me as a bias. when you typed '100 (nothing there), 2nd century (=150),' you were giving the impression that nothing was found prior to 150 even though you clarified that we could not be precise, you got precise.

Would you not object if I did the same rounding down?

If instead of saying p52 is likely dated between 100 and 170. I said that p52 is dated in the 2nd century and then separately defined the 2nd century as 100 - 150, wouldn't you object? Even if I explain why I rounded down, wouldn't you object?

(after all, the 2nd century does not start at 150, does it?).

~Steve

Roger Pearse

Um, just skimming some of the last few posts, there seems to be a lot of "did you say this?" "no I said that" "no you didn't" rather than any particular subject. I don't know about anyone else but I find that sort of personal stuff tedious.

Equinox

Steve wrote:
Thanks!

I would object if you were rounding down or up. "The same" implies that I was rounding, while 150 is the middle of the range, and I stated this was + or - 50 years. You'll also notice I did the same for the 3rd and 4th centuries too.

Anyway, OK. I trust you didn't mean any dishonesty.

Maybe a good approach on the Luke discussion is to start a new thread which clearly defines the topic, say "is GoL based on eyewitnesses?" or "what is the date of writing of most of GoL? - not counting small, late additions?", or "What is the most likely approximate date of the latest addition to GoL", or something else, and then list reasons for and against? It's not quite clear to me what the topic is, since we are both discussing GoL, and P52 (which is GoJ, not GoL).

Had a nice family cookout yesterday. I hopy everyone's weekend is going well. See ya-

Equinox

sschlichter

That may be the best approach if anyone has a specific interest in that.

Luke's authorship and p52 were initially relevant to the topic of forgeries and additions before the thread subject was scattered (and before the fisticuffs )

~Steve

Iasion

Greetings,

Luke says OTHERS wrote narratives based on what was passed down. Another way of saying this would be :

"Other Christians wrote narratives based on what we had heard passed down among us Christians. Then I wrote my own version after investigating".

There is no direct connection between Luke and any eye-witneses :
1. (alleged) eye-witnesses
2. un-named handers-down
3. un-named others who wrote narratives.
4. Luke investigates for his own version.

Luke is a long way from any alleged eye-witnesses.


There is NOTHING here to indicate deception. You certainly didn't show any. WHERE exactly is this deception you keep going on about?


We all know your opinion. What's missing is the evidence to support it.


You claimed Ignatius quotes Mark. He does not. You were wrong.
You claimed Papias quotes Mark. He does not. You were wrong.
Now a few posts later, you deny it even happened.

You claimed :
"since the book [G.Luke] in question is quoted early enough to make me think the author was an actual disciple of the apostles. "
I asked you for evidence of how early. You didn't reply. So I ask again : How early is G.Luke clearly quoted by name ?


Yes, it shows that neither Ignatius nor Papias quote Mark.

It also shows that some phrases found in Ignatius are also found in two Gospels. But you fail to show that Ignatius actually quoted a Gospel.

Ignatius does NOT name a Gospel.
Ignatius does NOT name an author.
Ignatius does NOT indicate he is quoting a book.
Ignatius does NOT attribute the sayings to Jesus like the Gospels do.
Ignatius does NOT give the same context the Gospels do.

All you have is a phrase found in Ignatius, AND also found in the Gospels. You then pretend this proves Ignatius quoted the Gospels. But in fact it does not.

Because it ignores the possibility that both Ignatius and the Gospels wrote down a common popular saying.

The fact that a phrase is found in both books does NOT prove book B quoted book A. You could use the exact same argument to show that the Gospels quoted Ignatius.

Both arguments are faulty.


None of whom quote any Gospels by name.


There is no such deception at all. You have failed to show any.

This is all too common with apologists - the claim that it's either :
* all completely 100% true
OR
* a lie, a deception.

There is no deception mentioned or shown anywhere in this discussion. I said nothing about deception. I showed how the Gospels could be wrong without deception. You have failed to show any deception at all.


Rubbish.
The could have heard it from people who believed.
They could have heard it from people who were wrong.
They could have been writing religious myth.
None of these required deception.

You appear to have a bee stuck in your bonnet about decpetion. Please stop talking about deception. It has nothing to do with this argument at all.


I didn't claim that. Please pay attention.


But deception is NOT your argument!
Deception is NOT my argument!
Deception is not ANYONE's argument here!

Deception is simply your faulty reading of my argument. Please stop this nonsense about deception. Please address my actual arguments, not your fantasy versions of them.


It's YOUR claim. If YOU believe Polycarp was John's disciple then please present your argument.

Also - explain how the letter of Polycarp says NOTHING about knowing John? Yet you claim he was John's disciple? Why?


I did. It hasn't changed since last time I read it.


Yes, I'm glad we agree. Luke wrote an orderly account. Without any connection, of any type, with any eye-witnesses at all. Like I said from the start.


I made no such argument. Please pay attention.


OK then - Luke travelled with Paul on a sea journey. So what? Paul never met Jesus either. No eye-witnesses travelled with Paul. Even IF Luke travelled with Paul - so what? Just what does it prove?


There was no deception. I claimed no deception. No deception is required for my argument.
Please STOP derailing my argument with this crap about deception!


Well, that's the state of modern NT scholarship. I wondered if you knew.


Iasion

sschlichter

If you look carefully, the word 'by' is important. It means that the accounts were passed on by who? by those who were eye-witnesses. There is no one else in the sentence. Your paraphrase is inaccurate.


Perhaps it is important to clarify that a deception includes an unintentional untruth.

In your examples:

The could have heard it from people who believed. (yet untrue, still a deception)

They could have heard it from people who were wrong. (they were wrong why? someone told them and it is not true)

They could have been writing religious myth. (since the genre is historical narrative, this is baloney.)

Since you claim there is no deception in Luke , then would you say that this is true?

(Luke 24:18) Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn't know the things that have happened there in these days?" (Luke 24:19) He said to them, "What things?" "The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene," they replied, "a man who, with his powerful deeds and words, proved to be a prophet before God and all the people; (Luke 24:20) and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to be condemned to death, and crucified him.

If not, then please describe for me the difference between what this statement is and an un-truth, a falsehood, or a deception.


So, I see a quote but because there is no attribution by name, you see a common popular saying. I will buy that.

So, the gospels, Ignatius, Papias, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, etc all shared some ‘common popular sayings?’ Is that a fair assessment of your position?

No, I have no reason not to believe that he was at this point. Tradition places him there. You claimed he was NOT. I would like to see some evidence to support that claim.

Obviously, it was very common not to write and quote without supplying a name. I can only speculate as to why? Perhaps, it was common knowledge. I received a letter from my mother last week and she did not mention knowing my father. Can I draw similar conclusions?

Well, Paul traveled to and from Jerusalem and on other occasions spent time with apostles who were eyewitness and servants of the Word. It provides the means for eye-witness interviews as would be appropriate for one that is providing an orderly account to anyone who might be interested in confirmation of the facts that they received from previous accounts. (such as Theophilus apparently was)

I have heard that claim on this site. How many NT scholars are there? Is this a national pool you are referring to, or is it world-wide?

~Steve