Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 10-15-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by true story

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Has there been anyone who has claimed that Luke 1:1-4 was interpolated or misinterpreted, after all? I'm leaving it aside because I'm not aware of that. But it would be interesting to read any case like that.

My memory’s a little sketchy, but I recall Joseph B. Tyson arguing both ways. I believe he interprets ‘orderly’ to mean ‘properly told’, not in historical but in theological terms. He also thinks the preface belongs to the author of Acts, and not the author of Luke.

Thanks, true story. I'll google Tyson to see if I can find what he says on this.

I've read that some connect the "orderly" comment in the Luke Prologue to Papias' comment that the Gospel of Mark was not written in order, indicating a concern by late First Century Christians about how the episodes in Jesus' life were organised.

TedM · 10-15-2011, 05:38 PM

Ok, you found examples of plagiarism, of which there of course are many. People plagiarize to win favor from others, so that could be the case here too. I assume you think there is nothing unusual about at least 2 plagiarisms of much of the same material within a short amount of time?

I have other things to do so you may have the last reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You haven't answered my question either.

The 'smell test' is that people don't knowingly quote verbatim in large measure if they believe what they are quoting is fictional. You have been unable to provide an example to disprove this smell test.

....

OK, here's an example

Plagiarism

Quote:

. . . a nineteen-year-old Harvard student named Kaavya Viswanathan, who published her first novel–with a half million dollar advance– a few weeks ago. It turns out that she plagiarized quite a bit of it from two books by another author named Megan McCafferty. According to one article I read, there were nearly forty passages of her novel that were too close for comfort, and some that were verbatim.

Viswanathan appeared on Today this morning and claimed that it was unintentional, that she had read the two books several times in high school and that McCafferty’s words had imprinted themselves on her photographic memory. She claims that she was unaware that it had happened and that she had not intended to do so. . .

Here's another

That's just on the first page of a google search.

Your smell test is defective.

Toto · 10-15-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, you found examples of plagiarism, of which there of course are many.

Now you admit it?

Quote:

People plagiarize to win favor from others, so that could be the case here too.

No they don't. They plagiarize to steal ideas, or co-opt positions.

Quote:

I assume you think there is nothing unusual about at least 2 plagiarisms of much of the same material within a short amount of time?

It's not unusual and you don't know what time period is involved.

This has been an exercise in frustration.

TedM · 10-15-2011, 05:58 PM

Stephan, I found the reference. I thought you were implying they had actual evidence for this claim, but I see that the denial is based on assumptions about who would and who wouldn't write the gospels, as well as a claim by Paul that there was only one gospel. Flimsy stuff.

(bold by me)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I am not assuming that Matthew and Luke were written by people named Matthew and Luke. The Marcionites (Dialogue of Adamantius) explicitly deny that disciples of this name actually wrote the texts ascribed to them. I don't know who wrote these texts, whether they were deliberate forgeries or accidental forgeries (though I suspect the former). All I know is that they were expansion of Mark for self-evident theological purposes.

I'd like to see the comments for the part bolded.

Kapyong · 10-15-2011, 06:31 PM

Gday,

So, word-for-word copying shows historicity?
Hmmm...

How about The Archko Volume's copying from Ben Hur?
or The Sophia of Jesus Christ copying from Eugnostos the Blessed?

Surely that means they were historical then?

K.

Chili · 10-16-2011, 04:44 PM

I do not see any plagiary at all but a clear difference is show as to how and why Matthew and Mark's Jesus goes back to purgatory for another 40 years or so, while Luke and John goes to heaven.

Not sure what the word synoptic means but if the above is true are they still synoptic? . . . and in case you wonder, Matthew's Jesus was not a true Nazarite as he was called out of Egypt and Nazareth was just a hide-out for him. IOW, not one of those called by God in Jn 1:13 but just a wannebe at best and an impostor for sure. Did they not call him James here too?

PhilosopherJay · 10-16-2011, 06:36 PM

Hi TedM.

I think we can all agree now that only historians copy works largely word for word.

I found four versions of this history online by four different authors. Three of them begin with the same word "Once." We may call them the synoptics. The other one begins with the word "there" and "once" is the "third" word. This reminds us of the historian John who differed so much in the order of events from the historians Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Candice Ransom (2002):

Quote:

Once there were three bears who lived in a house deep in the woods.
The Great big bear was papa bear. He had a loud growly voice. The middle-sized bear was mama bear. She had a sweet, low voice. And the smallest bear was baby bear. He had a high squeaky voice

Jenny Giles 1996

Quote:

Once upon a time,
There were three bears.
They all lived together
In a house by a forest.
There was a great big father bear,
A middle-sized mother bear,
And a little baby bear.

Storynory online (http://storynory.com/2006/01/16/gold...e-three-bears/)

Quote:

Once upon a time there were Three Bears, who lived together in a house of their own in a wood. One of them was a Little, Small, Wee Bear; and one was a Middle-sized Bear, and the other was a Great, Huge Bear.

Maci Bolt: http://macibolt.hu/pag/goldilock.html

Quote:

There was once a family of bears who lived in a cozy cottage in the woods. There was a great big Papa Bear, a medium size Momma Bear, and a little tiny baby bear.

There is also this clearly unorthodox and heretical version by an historian who calls himself the Brothers Grimm (an obvious fiction)

Quote:

Once upon a time in a large forest, close to a village, stood the cottage where the Teddy Bear family lived. They were not really proper Teddy Bears, for Father Bear was very big, Mother Bear was middling in size, and only Baby Bear could be described as a Teddy Bear.

Notice how he starts with the canonical "Once upon a time" but immediately adds "large" as an adjective to "forest." None of the other historians described the forest as being "large." This proves that he was not an eyewitness to the events. Of course, none of the other real historical authors describe the bears as being "teddy bears." This is another proof of an author that felt free to change his historical sources for ideological purposes.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Stephan, I found the reference. I thought you were implying they had actual evidence for this claim, but I see that the denial is based on assumptions about who would and who wouldn't write the gospels, as well as a claim by Paul that there was only one gospel. Flimsy stuff.

(bold by me)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I am not assuming that Matthew and Luke were written by people named Matthew and Luke. The Marcionites (Dialogue of Adamantius) explicitly deny that disciples of this name actually wrote the texts ascribed to them. I don't know who wrote these texts, whether they were deliberate forgeries or accidental forgeries (though I suspect the former). All I know is that they were expansion of Mark for self-evident theological purposes.

I'd like to see the comments for the part bolded.

TedM · 10-17-2011, 08:16 AM

Hmmm, I don't know Jay. That seems a very odd comparison, even if for the sake of humor, since they don't match word for word and the work is known fiction by the authors, and no one would accept the sayings and doings of the bears as historical. I have other things to do, so will leave to others to discuss further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM.

I think we can all agree now that only historians copy works largely word for word.

I found four versions of this history online by four different authors. Three of them begin with the same word "Once." We may call them the synoptics. The other one begins with the word "there" and "once" is the "third" word. This reminds us of the historian John who differed so much in the order of events from the historians Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Candice Ransom (2002):

Quote:

Once there were three bears who lived in a house deep in the woods.
The Great big bear was papa bear. He had a loud growly voice. The middle-sized bear was mama bear. She had a sweet, low voice. And the smallest bear was baby bear. He had a high squeaky voice

Jenny Giles 1996

Quote:

Once upon a time,
There were three bears.
They all lived together
In a house by a forest.
There was a great big father bear,
A middle-sized mother bear,
And a little baby bear.

Storynory online (http://storynory.com/2006/01/16/gold...e-three-bears/)

Quote:

Once upon a time there were Three Bears, who lived together in a house of their own in a wood. One of them was a Little, Small, Wee Bear; and one was a Middle-sized Bear, and the other was a Great, Huge Bear.

Maci Bolt: http://macibolt.hu/pag/goldilock.html

Quote:

There was once a family of bears who lived in a cozy cottage in the woods. There was a great big Papa Bear, a medium size Momma Bear, and a little tiny baby bear.

There is also this clearly unorthodox and heretical version by an historian who calls himself the Brothers Grimm (an obvious fiction)

Quote:

Once upon a time in a large forest, close to a village, stood the cottage where the Teddy Bear family lived. They were not really proper Teddy Bears, for Father Bear was very big, Mother Bear was middling in size, and only Baby Bear could be described as a Teddy Bear.

Notice how he starts with the canonical "Once upon a time" but immediately adds "large" as an adjective to "forest." None of the other historians described the forest as being "large." This proves that he was not an eyewitness to the events. Of course, none of the other real historical authors describe the bears as being "teddy bears." This is another proof of an author that felt free to change his historical sources for ideological purposes.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Stephan, I found the reference. I thought you were implying they had actual evidence for this claim, but I see that the denial is based on assumptions about who would and who wouldn't write the gospels, as well as a claim by Paul that there was only one gospel. Flimsy stuff.

(bold by me)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I am not assuming that Matthew and Luke were written by people named Matthew and Luke. The Marcionites (Dialogue of Adamantius) explicitly deny that disciples of this name actually wrote the texts ascribed to them. I don't know who wrote these texts, whether they were deliberate forgeries or accidental forgeries (though I suspect the former). All I know is that they were expansion of Mark for self-evident theological purposes.

I'd like to see the comments for the part bolded.

Chili · 10-17-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Hmmm, I don't know Jay. That seems a very odd comparison, even if for the sake of humor, since they don't match word for word and the work is known fiction by the authors, and no one would accept the sayings and doings of the bears as historical. I have other things to do, so will leave to others to discuss further.

Well Ted, the gosples don't match either and are fiction and not historical but bear witness to truth that is real and eternal and so carries history about.

TedM · 10-17-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Hmmm, I don't know Jay. That seems a very odd comparison, even if for the sake of humor, since they don't match word for word and the work is known fiction by the authors, and no one would accept the sayings and doings of the bears as historical. I have other things to do, so will leave to others to discuss further.

Well Ted, the gosples don't match either and are fiction and not historical but bear witness to truth that is real and eternal and so carries history about.

I may be under the mistaken impression that the gospels in fact DO match word for word in many places (thus the Markan priority or Q Document theories). I have a book that compares them but it is in storage at the moment..

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

10-15-2011, 06:31 PM	#85
Kapyong Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Perth Posts: 1,779	Gday, So, word-for-word copying shows historicity? Hmmm... How about The Archko Volume's copying from Ben Hur? or The Sophia of Jesus Christ copying from Eugnostos the Blessed? Surely that means they were historical then? K.

10-16-2011, 04:44 PM	#86
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I do not see any plagiary at all but a clear difference is show as to how and why Matthew and Mark's Jesus goes back to purgatory for another 40 years or so, while Luke and John goes to heaven. Not sure what the word synoptic means but if the above is true are they still synoptic? . . . and in case you wonder, Matthew's Jesus was not a true Nazarite as he was called out of Egypt and Nazareth was just a hide-out for him. IOW, not one of those called by God in Jn 1:13 but just a wannebe at best and an impostor for sure. Did they not call him James here too?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.