Anduin

Two interesting articles on the problems of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts:

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm

In my view, there is particularly damning evidence against the possibility that Mark was written by a Jew in several instances.

judge

Probably the first place to start is with the original Aramaic version called the peshitta

If you are looking for evidence rather than assertions in this regard you can start here.

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/



These ideas are not popular with those who have spent time and money studying NT greek, or with those who make money teaching NT greek.

Roger Pearse

The data records no doubts, then or later. If we wish to say that there were, what are we to use for evidence?

Does this argument not rather presume that people living in 180 had no more texts or sources of information than we do?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This seems to suggest that fragments must be discarded. Is this a position that you wish to adopt?

Indeed. It discusses Irenaeus' sources of information: rather good, as we see.

In his surviving, short, letter. I am unclear what point you make here, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Knife

Should a statement about the past be considered true just because it is stated? I dont think so. Why should the above statement be considered true?

MJ67

The testimony for Matthew writing his own gospel, for example, comes to us from Eusebius who references his knowledge of the authorship of this text as coming from Papias. Papias' works, save for fragments are unavailable. This same Eusebius wrote on more than one occassion that he takes it as truth because Constantine told him so, that Jesus and or God, communed with the king on several occassions. Is this truly testimony to fact?

Now if the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted as having been first hand accounts, then so too should, as one example, the 4th century BCE papyrus scroll detailing the creation of the universe and man as written in the first person by Amun, be accepted as fact.

Revisionist

What should immediately come into mind is that pretty much the whole of critical scholarship acknowledges Markian priority. There is no way to reconcile any of this ancient, self-serving bullshit with Markian priority (i.e. Why does Matthew literally copy word for word Mark, when Mark isn't even an eyewitness, like Matthew is alleged to be?)

For that matter, we know for certain many Christian groups gave Apostolic authority to their favorite writings. Do you believe Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter? Why would these four be an exception among the literally hundreds of documents claiming to be written by disciples?

And the claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew has no basis in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever the document we have is a translation. In fact, St. Jerome claimed he even found the document mentioned here, which was different than the Greek one we have.

By "Church" you mean the group of Christians that won out and got to claim their documents were the truly inspired ones. If you actually look at the Orthodox group that won out, they doubt countless documents. The ones they didn't doubt were the ones that championed their particular brand of theological nonsense.

Not to mentioned Irenaeus' main source, Papias (through Polycarp), was said to be "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" by none other than Eusebius himself, and it was doubted by him that Papias ever knew the author of John. How's that for Church skepticism for you?

Doug Shaver

Human nature. Early Christians disagreed about everything else. Why not that?

Suppose we were discussing the Communist Revolution in Russia. Would we be justified in supposing that nothing happened except what appeared in subsequent history books approved by the Soviet Union? For nearly a thousand years, nobody was preserving the historical record of the time we're discussing except for people who believed in Christianity as we now know Christianity.

No, it just refuses to assume that they did have the particular texts or other sources that would support beliefs that later became orthodox.

The only position I am adopting is a position against any presumptions of patristic inerrancy. We have Eusebius saying that Irenaeus said X. That is not proof that X is true. I might stipulate that it is possibly true. I will not agree that it is certainly true.

Back when I was doing journalism, I interviewed Wally Schirra a few days after the Challenger blew up. An article with my byline, reporting that interview, appeared in a newspaper called the St. Augustine Record in early February 1986, which confirms that I did on at least one occasion meet Wally Schirra and talk with him.

Now suppose that in another article in another newspaper, I attribute a certain statement to Alan Shepherd without giving any indication of how I came across that information. Would anyone be justified in assuming that I got it from Schirra? It's obviously a possibility, but should it be assumed?

If Polycarp had in fact known one or more of Jesus' disciples, it is highly improbable that he would not have mentioned it frequently in his writings. If he had done that, it is highly improbable that the only documents of his to survive would be those in which he made no such mention.

Even in that unlikely event, surely they would have been quoted often by other writers whose works do survive? Nobody who says anything about him quotes him on any subject relevant to what Jesus' disciples had to say about Jesus himself. Nowhere do we find anything like "According to Polycarp, the disciple John told him ______."

That is one dog that should have barked loud and clear.

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is an appeal to authority.

Which 'Markian priority' do you mean? Did you mean to say that Westcott & Hort's version of Mk, as published in 1881, was the earliest Christian gospel?

It has plenty of basis in fact. Actually, it is the idea that Matthew was originally written in Greek that has no basis in fact.

But is there any evidence that it was not a translation?

So how do you know that what Jerome saw was not the original Mt?

Regards,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

I'm not really involved in this discussion; but this would seem to be the point at which Jerome should be referenced and quoted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse