spamandham

The exact details of how it all happened are not very important for the purpose of debunking 'multiple attestation' claims. To do that, we need only demonstrate that the later gospels are all dependent on Mark. By doing so, we have identified those later gospels as literary efforts that do not add any additional attestation.

A minority of scholars say that the sequence "Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John" is sufficient to explain all the differences and so there is no need for any Q documents. But most scholars propose one or more sayings documents that the gospel writers are familiar with. If so, then such sayings document(s) become the only "attestation" derived fom the entire NT, and we know nothing of their fidelity and can only guess at their content. I'm not sure a hypothetical document of unknown veracity counts as even a single attestation.

Multiple sources != multiple attestation

There are possibly hundreds of sayings documents related to Confucius, but if our goal is to determine historical details about the man, the quantity of such documents is irrelevant, as it is clear they all derive from a single source, which is Confucianism itself.

Hopefully, you would recognize that the Analects of Confucius is categorically similar to the gospels (or the NT as a whole), and really only attests to the existence of Confucianism. Similarly, the NT is not a record of Jesus, it's a record of Christianity. This doesn't imply that the gospels contain no historically accurate facts about Jesus, but it does imply we can't assume that they do.

show_no_mercy

You haven't actually addressed my post at all. This is like an automated response.

spin

Clearly no attempt to actually understand the contention comes through this and what follows. I made a clear distinction and you simply respond: :huh: "What, me worry?"

The gospel of Peter has extra material as well, as do the birth gospels and the other letters of Paul, such as the letter to the Laodiceans or 3 Corinthians or the correspondence with Seneca. Even Jesus wrote letters to Agbar. Sources within a tradition usually cannot be shown to be independent. It is a gross blunder to propose that they must be, for you have no way of demonstrating any independence.

Only someone who wants to disregard the fact that a tradition can inspire diverse thought can claim that the gospels must derive from independent sources.

Do the two stories of the feedings of the multitudes in Mark represent two different traditions or variations within the one tradition? Do the two different deaths of Judas represent two independent sources or variations within the one tradition?

If you had some way of demonstrating independence of testimony, then you might reasonably persist, but as it is you have nothing up your sleeve. You simply refuse to enter into the significance of "independent attestation".


spin

aa5874

Jesus of the NT is NOT in Tacitus at ALL.

In Antiquities of the Jews Jesus was a some kind of Ghost or Supernatural being who was seen alive on the third day and it was NOT even known if it was lawful to call Jesus a man.

Secondly, there was NO Jewish Messiah who had ABOLISHED the Laws of the Jews and whose RESURRECTION was for the REMISSION of Sins BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

It is a FABLE that Josephus only wrote about the brother of the Jewish Messiah who was the SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT EXPECTED JEW of the JEWS and when Josephus himself and Jews fought Against the Romans EXPECTING a Jewish Messiah.

Thirdly, NO church writer claimed James the Apostle had a human brother called Jesus and NONE used Antiquities of the Jews to claim James the Apostle had a human brother who was called Jesus.

Fourthly, if it was known that Jesus was just a man since he was BORN then the Jesus cult would have been regarded as LIARS and DECEIVERS. A mere man has no ability to REMIT SINS. Not even the DEIFIED EMPERORS had the ability to REMIT SINS.


Jesus of the NT was a MYTH FABLE. There is NOT one credible historical record of the NT Messiah.

aa5874

You are not making sense. The NT is a compilation of books and each book have different versions of Jesus. It is consistent in the NT that Jesus was described as a MYTH.

It is VIRTUALLY impossible to look at the NT today and figure out exactly the original version of any Gospel but there is consistency in that Jesus was claimed to have been born of a Virgin without a human father and was RAISED from the dead.

The extant Gospels we have are 4th century VERSIONS of the Jesus story and are most likely copies of copies that were changed over time.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that gJohn used a different source. All you KNOW is that gJohn is NOT like the Synoptics. And again, you have ASSUMED gJohn is an historical record of Jesus.

You CANNOT ASSUME gJohn is actual history. There was likely NO MAN in Galilee who claimed he was the TRUTH and the LIFE who raized Lazarus from the dead.

The Jesus was story in gJohn show MASSIVE SIGNS of invention or non-history.

Without EXTERNAL non-apologetic sources gJohn cannot be assumed to be history ONLY MYTH, when Jesus in gJohn was the Creator of heaven and earth, and was SEEN alive on the 3RD OR 4TH DAY.

aa5874

What you say cannot be so. If there was a Jewish Messiah during the time of Philo and Josephus it would be expected that they would have written perhaps a book on the Messiah.

The JEWS and Josephus fought with Roman expecting a Jewish Messiah and it was mentioned by Josephus.

In fact, upon reflection, it is just not correct to think that no one would have written about the Messiah if he did not come when the COMPLETE opposite is recorded.

Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus ALL wrote that the Jews were DECEIVED when their EXPECTED Jewish Messiah did NOT come at around c 70 CE.

See Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian, and Tacitus Histories.