Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 02-22-2012, 10:54 AM

to Duvduv,
I cannot say no emphatically, but I do not see any evidence for that. I think L, M, Papias parables, etc. were all invented (actually, in my view, all parables were invented). Difference in common material in gMatthew and gLuke on Q and gMark, most of the time, can be explained by the motivation, agenda, context, identity of the gospeler.

Duvduv · 02-22-2012, 11:06 AM

Fair enough. I wondered also about the Ignatian epistles that must have been written after the Paulines were considered unique since otherwise they might have eventually been included in the canon.

There is no reason why parables or stories may not have emerged from other places and people and over time they were thought to have be relevant to the NT Jesus figure once he became a historical figure. Some may have gone back to the days of Yeshu Pandera in the first century BCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

to Duvduv,
I cannot say no emphatically, but I do not see any evidence for that. I think L, M, Papias parables, etc. were all invented (actually, in my view, all parables were invented). Difference in common material in gMatthew and gLuke on Q and gMark, most of the time, can be explained by the motivation, agenda, context, identity of the gospeler.

Grog · 02-25-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Doug, that is exactly the logic for the absence of gospel information in the epistles according to those who argue that Paul did know about them.

So what? I'm using the logic correctly. They are not.

I don't remember saying they have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Anyway I don't follow your last point in light of what I just said. You mean to say that no references to stories or aphorisms of the gospel Jesus in the context of all of Acts would be included because of credibility?

I believe they were not included because I believe the same author wrote both Acts and what we call Luke's gospel, and it would have been pointless for him to duplicate, in Acts, material that he had already put into the gospel. But, if they were written by different authors (which I admit is a possibility), then whoever wrote Acts was pretending to be the author of the gospel. In that case, if he had half a brain, he would have been concerned about making his pretense credible (unlike, say, the idiot TF forger who tried to make Josephus sound like a born-again Christian). If you're trying to produce a credible forgery, you don't write stuff that the writer you're pretending to be would not have written.

I tend to lean toward the idea that the author of Acts is also the final redactor of canonized gLuke. Luke/Acts is part of a whole, but the reason for some incongruities is that gLuke was not entirely written by the author of Acts, just incorporated. The ending of gLuke does not mesh well with the beginning of Acts--a problem that the "author" doesn't seem bothered by. No attempt to gloss that over is made at all. Not like Star Wars when Ben Kenobi has to retract his story that Darth Vader killed Luke's father. "What I meant to say was he symbolically killed him." Acts author doesn't seem to think that this incongruity poses any problem to his story. I don't think, though, that he would have written that ending. He just let it stand and amended the story slightly in Acts.

Duvduv · 02-25-2012, 04:48 PM

Then further to my posting in another thread, the "final versions" could have been provided by the later church who already knew what they wanted expressed in the canon and made their drafts accordingly, including the nice little correspondence between the story in Luke and chapters 20-26 of Acts.

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

02-22-2012, 10:54 AM	#301
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to Duvduv, I cannot say no emphatically, but I do not see any evidence for that. I think L, M, Papias parables, etc. were all invented (actually, in my view, all parables were invented). Difference in common material in gMatthew and gLuke on Q and gMark, most of the time, can be explained by the motivation, agenda, context, identity of the gospeler.

02-25-2012, 04:48 PM	#304
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Then further to my posting in another thread, the "final versions" could have been provided by the later church who already knew what they wanted expressed in the canon and made their drafts accordingly, including the nice little correspondence between the story in Luke and chapters 20-26 of Acts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.