Roger Pearse

I agree entirely. But if I might be a little mischievous, my own experience is that very few *atheists* are capable of even stating the value-idea system by which they live, never mind of looking for evidence for it. (Many do make rather a habit of going around making demands of others, hence the point of this remark).

It is reasonably apparent that -- ignoring what they are hostile towards -- their values are merely some subset of those of the period and culture in which they happened to grow up; sometimes they seem to be simply convenience and little more.

For instance atheist writers of all period often appeal to contemporary mores -- whatever happens to be contemporary -- as a reason why (e.g.) the bible is immoral, for instance. Such an appeal can only be valid if the writer considers that the period values of the time are valid in some sense, since the nature of these values changes.

Of course the same is true of most people; but this *is* an intellectual position -- one lived out in millions of lives -- and surely it should be at least *known* to those who live by it?

Naturally this query is best put by those not already identified as enemies of the poster, of course!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

* mod note: from Harvard Faculty page

Concerning the gospel of Luke, François Bovon says : "Doubtlessly, some people wanted to assign this gospel to a disciple of Paul ; the names of Titus and Timothy were already reserved, as readers and not writers, of the pastoral epistles. Among the other well known names of the acquaintances of Paul, the name of Luke emerged as the best one".

Roger Pearse

I sense an appeal to 'authority'.

It's a little odd to see someone who ought to know what the data is stating as fact what every writer of antiquity contradicts, and which is supported by no testimony of the time. Still, in the humanities ...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

Yes, of course. If it were simply my own opinion, I would not mention it. But I find this opinion of a scholar quite interesting.

Huon

Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 180-190 :
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 1)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
[end quote]

I have been said that this quote is the first mention of the existence of the gospels of Luke and John.

Huon

Papias (100-150) was the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (west central part of modern Turkey).

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 Chapter 39. The Writings of Papias.
1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
3. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."
5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.
6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said." Acts 1:23
11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
[end quote]

Ben C Smith

For Luke, that statement may be correct, but it depends on the date of (A) the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke, which is the only one extant in Greek as well as Latin and which seems to genuinely exhibit an anti-Marcionite tendency, and (B) the Muratorian canon, which dates itself, by its reference to Pius of Rome, to century II or early century III.

For John, Irenaeus competes, not only with the anti-Marcionite prologue to John (which admittedly has less claim to an early date than the prologue to Luke) and the Muratorian canon, but also with Theophilus, who wrote in To Autolycus 2.22.2 in circa 180-185:

Οθεν διδασκουσιν ημας αι αγιαι γραφαι και παντες οι πνευματοφοροι, εξ ων Ιωαννης λεγει· Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, δεικνυς οτι εν πρωτοις μονος ην ο θεος και εν αυτω ο λογος. επειτα λεγει· Και θεος ην ο λογος· παντα δι αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδεν.

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from among whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: The word was God; all things came to be through him; and apart from him nothing came to be.

Ben.

Huon

Good post, Ben.

chrisengland

Hello

First I like to ask' Huon I take it your mention of Francois bovon was a reply to my post asking people to try to back up their claims with some schoalry support

Next I think people need to be clear when they say extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
The premies is deffinately true' but you have to explain what is so extraodinary about a supernatural event' I don't think you rule out miricles without good reason.
I'd like to give my thoughts on the matter.
I think alot of it depends on whether you beleive in alot of other supernatural events or not. If you don't then your admitting that most of the time when someone claims to see a ghost or a ufo or have esp that their either mistaken or lying.
Wich meens that if every other supernatural claim is wrong then we should be very careful when we assess evidence for supernatural events and not except them without very good evidence.
Also its important to remember that their have been probably hundreds of thousands of religions throughout history' wich proves that humans make up religions'and so if you claim your religion is the right one you need to back it up with good evidence.
Also remember the fact that theres no reason why they can't all been wrong' know ones proven God must exist and even if they did there could be a distant God.
I think those are quite good reasons as to why supernatural events require more evidence' any comments welcome.
chris

Huon

Chris, yes, my mention of François Bovon was a reply to your post asking people to try to back up their claims with some scholarly support. I found this quote very surprising. If I understand well, it means that, possibly, Luke took a part in the writing of the gospel "according to" Luke, but that he was also a sort of "scholarly support" ( ) of what is now written in this gospel.

My other posts show that this gospel is first mentioned by the bishop Papias, who wrote between 100 and 150, and who is known by some quotes of Eusebius. Papias is said to be a "hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John", who are at best "followers of the elders" (apostles). The presbyter John is not John son of Zebedee, the apostle.

So, you have : the elders -> Aristion -> Papias -> 150 years -> Eusebius
And : .......... : Paul -> Luke -> 20 to 50 years -> Papias

What happened to the writings ascribed to Luke during the first half of the second century (100-150) ? We know that there was a severe debate between the future "orthodox christians" and Marcion.

Even with Papias, Eusebius is very critical. He writes :
Note that Papias was a bishop, not an ordinary ninny. Simply the christian beliefs of the time of Papias were no more fashionable at the time of Eusebius.