Johnny Skeptic

Message to archaeologist: Do you have any evidence that the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed to be eyewitnesses?

Kapyong

Gday,

Here is the evidence :

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

1. The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17.

This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 προγινωσκοντεσ). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the αρετη of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (θειασ κοινωνοι φυσεωσ) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term εποπται comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

3. The letter has a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians' expectation of the parousia. 1:12 ff already deals with the hope of the parousia, which is based on the fact of the transfiguration of Jesus and the OT prophecy. In 3:3 ff there is a direct polemic against those who deny the parousia. These ask scornfully, "Where is the promise of the parousia of Christ?" and draw attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). In I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff too, there is adduced a writing which was obviously read in Christian circles, in which is laid down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have, therefore, historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the disdainful skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff. But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis. A more exact determination is not possible, however.

4. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged. This point of view can be confirmed through two further facts.

5. As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship (see above, p. 430). The auther adduces his authority not only on the basis of the fiction of a "testament of Peter" but also by reference back to I Pet in 3:1 f, intending II Pet only to "recall" (1:12, 15; 3:1 f) what was said in I Pet to the extent that it corresponds to the interpretation which the author of II Pet wants to give to I Pet. This appeal to the apostolic authority of Peter and his letter is obviously occasioned by the sharpening of the Gnostic false teaching which is being combated in Jdue, as a result of a consistent denial of the parousia of the false teachers. In this way, the apostle has become the "guarantor of the tradition" (1:12 f), and as a consequence of the abandonment of the near expectation (3:8) the parousia is stripped of its christological character and functions as an anthropologically oriented doctrine of rewards. In its consistent quality the pseudonymity betrays the late origins of II Pet.

6. In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhwere mentioned in the second century. The apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested (αμφιβαλλεται). Eusebius lists it among the antilegomena. . . Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.

From:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Scholars agree - 2 Peter is a pseudograph (the formal word for an ancient forgery.)


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

WTF?
Most of your posts have been preaching Christian tradition (beliefs with no actual evidence.)

First YOU preach Christian tradition,
now YOU reject Christian tradition ?

You just make it all up as you go along, right?




The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."



Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.


All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on eye-witnesses"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.


In summary,
the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writings.

Luke was not an eye-witness,
Luke met no eye-witnesses,
Luke identified no eye-witnesses,
Luke does not directly connect his writing with any eye-witnesses.


Luke doesn't deny being a child molester.
Luke doesn't deny being a wif-beater.
Luke doesn't deny being a space-alien.
So what?


Rubbish.
Order of writing has NO bearing on eye-witness-hood.

G.Mark makes errors of culture and geography - which is why scholars agree Mark never knew the people OR the region.


Rubbish.
That would be a HEARSAY account, at best.

So -
you have once again FAILED to produce a SINGLE claim to have met Jesus, or anyone who knew him.

You can instantly prove us all wrong with just ONE SINGLE genuine quite of someone claiming to have met Jesus - but post after post you fail, and also fail to admit it.


K.

arnoldo

What about 1 Peter?

The date for Polycarp's letter to the Phillippians is dated circa 110-140 A.D.

archaeologist

That is not tradition but faith.

You are reading into the passage what you want it to say. There are factors you are ignoring and are looking for specific declarations which do not have to be there.

No, It would be having someone write it for you. Your demand for exact wording is just another excuse for you to stay in unbelief and attack the Bible.

Scholars, especially unbelieving ones, are not the final say in thematter. They need, like you, to have 2 Peter a forgery so they can dismiss the rest of the Bible. To have that book included in the Bible would discredited the rest and say that God lied and sinned. Sorry but that book is not a forgery.

Again with the call for evidence. Would you bellieve and accept it if it were presented? Or simply dismiss it because no extra-biblical work verified it?

the Bible doesn't go by modern scientific rules, it goes by God's rules and His alone. Do you have confirming biblical non-unbelieving ancient accounts for there being no eye-witnesses? As I told you there is no double standard or slanted playing fields in this discussion. You demand of me be prepared to do the same with your theories.

please provide evidence from biblical or christian books that this actually took place.

Yet the book of acts records persecutions against the believers, so i would challenge your thought here.

arnoldo

The following article seems to answer the alleged geographical errors in Mark.

archaeologist

Okay rooster your turn--

The evidence that we have, things like the ducks' migration, could only be known if people were in the desert at the time. Or the Ipuwer papyrus which is redated to make sure it isn't accepted as evidence. And they all rest upon one thing--faith. The Bible does not go by modern scientific rules, it goes by God's which means you need faith not physical evidence if you are going to get anywhere with God.

The Bible is an ancient document recording Israel's history, it is viable and credible. Archaeology has shown the veracity and truthfulness of the Bible by discovering the names of the Patriarchs were in use when the Bible says, ancient cities and civilizations actually existed and still exist, that are named in the Bible. One should not need phyical evidence for every little detail and event to trust its words,if they do then theyare not showing trust andfaith but skepticism and unbelief.

Possibly but keep in mind: 1. they did not all die in the same place; 2. possibly used existing graveyards which would throw ff the dating; 3. their grasveyards possibly could have been used by others again throwing off the dating; 4. no pottery or other indicators of date would be included in the graves because the Israelites carried none with them; 5. not every thing that is buried in the ground survives 4,000 years to the modern age.

I just gave a couple at the top and I have given jericho but keep in mind, do your travels leave much evidence that would survive a long period of time?
The Bible is also evidence.

I only stay with the number given in the Bible,remember though that not all fighting men were married or had children.

spamandham

Since ducks migrate, therefor donkeys talk and pigs commit mass suicide.

Since the Bible has names of cities and civilizations in it, therefor donkeys talk and pigs commit mass suicide.

Not everything, just the absurd things, like talking donkeys and suicidal pigs.

show_no_mercy

The complete lack of any trace of over 1 million people roaming around the desert isn't the sole problem (think about how much trash there was at Woodstock; and that was only a weekend). The problem is that there's no evidence of mass dislocations of any native Canaanite peoples around the time period that the Exodus - Joshua describes. There should have been a huge influx of non-native Canaanite pottery if the events in the conquests describe happened; this is how we can tell when a population is invaded.

If the Jews were native to Egypt for 400 years, then we would expect to see some sort of Egyptian-like pottery - dishes, pans, firepits, etc. - overrunning the landscape when they invaded. There's simply no evidence of that. There's no evidence of millions of people wandering the desert for 40 years, and there's no evidence that these millions of people displaced large amounts of Canaanites in one generation.

The actual evidence indicates that the Hebrews were native to Canaan all along and simply grew to become a distinct culture. The "escape from Egypt" story makes sense because they were seen as a far away antagonist due to Egypt's history of conquest in the area (hence things like the Mernetaph stele), and it makes sense of the pharaoh in the story not having a name. If Moses wrote that story, then he wouldn't have forgotten the name of the pharaoh that he lived under and spoke to face-to-face.

Kapyong

Gday,

Christian "tradition" is things that are believed without evidence.

Faith is believing things without evidence.


You're just pulling our chains.


K.