Ben C Smith

I was joking, my man.

I mentioned Quirinius because Justin Martyr references his census records in much the same way (εκ των απογραφων των γενομενων επι Κυρηνιου) as he references the acts compiled under Pilate; presumably, then, Quirinius is a candidate for apostleship or sainthood in the same way you suggested for Pilate.

Ben.

Malachi151

Hey, you should come to our atheist led Bible study on Colfax:

http://atheists.meetup.com/67/?gj=sj6

This Sunday at 3:00:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/temp/absflyer.pdf

As for your question, even my Study Bible, written by Christians, says that they were not written by eyewitnesses.

Even the earliest accounts only said that Matthew and John were, Mark and Luke were never claimed to be eyewitness accounts.

Roger Pearse

I wasn't commenting on that idea. You said, "Justin must have considered Pilate an apostle also", which seems to suppose rather firmly that a reference to the acts of Pilate must mean the title of a text, rather than a reference to Pilate's official correspondence etc, and in fact the term acta is used rather widely, and has no specifically Christian context.

Justin may have had some text like the 'Acts of Pilate' now known to us (although aren't these a 4th century response to the forged Acta Pilati put out by Hierocles in the Great Persecution?); but his text seems to suggest no commitment to this, and can equally mean "Pilate's official records".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

That doesn't seem an unreasonable demand, particularly for an appeal to the authority of people living 2000 years after the events.

Whether or not this idea really is the "assured consensus of modern scientific research" (which I believe is a phrase of Harnack's referring to some bit or other of 19th century tripe, but sadly didn't write down when I saw it) I don't know.

I admit to not caring either, in my amateur way, given my knowledge of the history of NT scholarship and the sort of antics some of those in the field get up to now.

What we want is DATA, surely, whatever our views? Anyone can tell that the establishment will parrot the establishment view on a matter of politics and religion.

Indeed I have a charming volume on the apostolic fathers on my shelves somewhere, written in the 18th century, the preface to which asserts calmly that the contents show that the earliest Christians were perfect 18th century Anglicans.

Myself, I had not known that the 18th century Anglican church was run by apostles and prophets (to give one crass example), but no doubt a fellowship at Oxford, a non-residential canonry, and a good supply of the old port in the smoaking room and I'd mellow on this.

The difficulty is that it isn't true, tho.

But I'm not sure why your religious position depends on something like that. It's fairly obvious, surely, that Christianity did get founded by a bloke with a beard on a soapbox who gathered followers and then got lynched; that the followers regrouped around a second leader who was more of an organiser, the movement met resistance, documents by the founders and their associates enjoyed special status, etc. This is the story of how Marxism arose, never mind Christianity -- human beings are prone to do things in similar ways, and most movements start with one man, and when he is gone his immediate circle write about him. This isn't to say that Marx is right; but wouldn't it be absurd to sit down and claim that Marxist-Leninism is untrue because Lenin's works were ghost-written (or whatever)? It's untrue for other reasons.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151

Here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#1

See also:

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/...ic_Problem.htm

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Evangelists.htm

The above quote is from a Catholic website and I don't fully agree with it, but its sufficient to show the acceptance that they weren't written by eye-witnesses.

jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I understand your point now.

Jake

Ben C Smith

:rolling:

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
While I certainly agree that Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") reasoning here is idiotic I think the excerpt by itself above, which I see Skeptics, even at the (cough, cough) highest Skeptical level, trot out all the time, is misleading by itself. It gives the impression that Irenaeus of Lyons (ill) says the number of legitimate Gospels was set at Four before the specific Gospels were determined.

If you can stand to do so though ill first makes clear that in his opinion the legitimate Gospels all have Apostolic transmission support. The distinction ill makes from the supposedly illegitimate Gospels of his opponents is that they do not have Apostolic transmission. Either they have falsely (per ill) claimed Apostolic transmission or have significantly Forged what was Apostolic (per ill).

Thus ill's comment above is only a confirmation of why there were only four legitimate Gospels, or a Post selection argument.

The earlier Christians such as Justin were arguing mainly with Pagans and since the Pagans couldn't exactly give an Apostolic transmission for Hercules the early Christians didn't need to give one for Jesus. The arguments were priMarily philosophical.

In ill's time the "Orthodox" Christians were arguing mainly with fellow Christians so the most important issue is whose Fake Gospel was most authentic.

Ill may have been stupid by Skeptical standards but he wasn't that stupid.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page