Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-15-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Yes that's an emendation made by somebody else, not by the actual author. The actual author (really multiple authors) makes no such claim and both internal and external evidence exclude the possibility of the author being an eyewitness (with the possible exception of some anecdotal fragments from some prior oral tradition, but even that is dubious).

I was under the impression that we were putting aside the issue of historicity and interpolation, and simply taking the gospels as we have them.

I mean, if we want to exclude interpolated material, then we best get rid of the entire gospel of John.

Jon

How can interpolations and historicity be excluded from an investigation about historical credibility of the Gospels?

Please, the Pauline writings were NOT gotten rid of when it was deduced that more than 20 chapters of various epistles were written under the name of "Paul".

Why must we get rid of gJohn because ONE chapter was interpolated?

An archaeologist would NOT bury some ancient site because what he found does not agree with what he expected.

JonA · 07-16-2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But we're not really talking about interpolation (it's not added into the text proper) it's an addendum after the text. It's a different kind of beast. It isn't meant to be deceptive. It isn't presenting itself as part of the text proper, it's just vouching for it. It's saying, "yeah, that shit was written by a disciple. We back it up."

It's a minor point either way. The gospel clearly isn't a private memoir.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.