FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-10-2008, 12:05 PM   #121
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky View Post
If the Second Feeding of the Multitudes was really an integral part of the original narrative of Jesus' ministry, I would say that aLuke would have been an extremely arrogant and capricious editor to completely omit it.
Why?

Do you feel the same way about the cursing of the fig tree?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 04:49 PM   #122
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Tertullian claimed Marcion mutilated Luke, yet quote passages that are found in Matthew.
Many serious questions you raise, aa. To shift to a tangent, I wonder if your comment above should be seen as supporting evidence that the gospels did not have authors assigned from their inception.

Neil Godfrey
What many have failed to realise is that once scholars have contradicted the church writers and claimed that all the gospels were written after the death of Nero, and that the writers of the epistles were more than one person, the entire history of the gospels and epistles, as given by the church writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others ,have been made completely obsolete.

Justin Martyr mentioned over 50 verses from the memoirs of the apostles yet did not name the authors. He mentioned only two or three verses from Revelations but did mention John as the author given he impression that he did not know the name of the authors of the 50 verses.

Justin did not mention any letters from Paul, and his writings show no PAULINE influence.

It would appear that there were no named gospel during the time of Justin.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 06:15 PM   #123
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Justin Martyr claimed the "memoirs of the apostles" which contained passages similar to the gospels were read in the churches in the cities and in the country on Sundays. "The memoirs" were very popular, however there was no mention of any gospel called Luke by Martyr, yet he mentioned that some John wrote a "revelation".
The names of things can change. "Memoirs" could turn into "Luke", for example - i.e. he might be talking about the same thing.

But actually if he is talking about something with a different name, by "memoirs", it's more likely he'd talking about what became "Matthew".
You probably have not read the passages from the memoirs of the apostles as stated by Justin Martyr.

There are pasages in the memoir of the apostles that are found ONLY in gMark, ONLY in gLuke and ONLY in gJohn.

So parts of the memoirs of the apostles are in all the gospels, not only gMatthew.


Also, based on the Diatessaron by Tatian, it would appear that there were four unnamed Jesus stories up to or near the end of the 2nd century, since it is claimed Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 06:35 PM   #124
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Justin did not mention any letters from Paul, and his writings show no PAULINE influence.
I have no dispute with anything you say, except to remark that Justin does in a few places sound a bit like he is expressing thoughts after he's read some of Paul (e.g. Romans 11). I don't believe there is any reason to think such passages are from his knowledge of Paul's letters. Rather, some of the issues addressed in Paul's letters derive from the same pool of memes well established in the mid-second century.

Neil
neilgodfrey is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 09:28 PM   #125
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Justin did not mention any letters from Paul, and his writings show no PAULINE influence.
I have no dispute with anything you say, except to remark that Justin does in a few places sound a bit like he is expressing thoughts after he's read some of Paul (e.g. Romans 11). I don't believe there is any reason to think such passages are from his knowledge of Paul's letters. Rather, some of the issues addressed in Paul's letters derive from the same pool of memes well established in the mid-second century.

Neil
To assume that a single word or two that is found in Justin Martyr's writings must be from the letters of Paul is not sound at all. It must stand to reason that the letters called PAUL could have been written after the writings of Justin.

The CHURCH have lost track of Paul.

There is nothing to exclude the letters of Paul from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century.

The Church lost Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 09:46 PM   #126
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post

I have no dispute with anything you say, except to remark that Justin does in a few places sound a bit like he is expressing thoughts after he's read some of Paul (e.g. Romans 11). I don't believe there is any reason to think such passages are from his knowledge of Paul's letters. Rather, some of the issues addressed in Paul's letters derive from the same pool of memes well established in the mid-second century.

Neil
To assume that a single word or two that is found in Justin Martyr's writings must be from the letters of Paul is not sound at all. It must stand to reason that the letters called PAUL could have been written after the writings of Justin. . . .

There is nothing to exclude the letters of Paul from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century. . . .
I take it you are expressing essential agreement with me, then? :-)

(I'm also sure you've noticed the extended sections in the latter part of Trypho that do sound like Romans 9-11 et al, and agree with me that these do not prove Justin knew Romans.)

Neil
neilgodfrey is offline  
Old 11-11-2008, 07:05 AM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Vernon Robbins thinks that the Great Omission can be explained by aLuke's decision to place Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Paul's ministry around the Mediterranean. Whether or not you accept the main part of this early paper of his, I think that point is worth considering.
Toto, I have to thank you--pointing this out has been incredibly helpful to me. I think Robbins is partly right and partly wrong. This has suddenly helped me put together the last 3-5 years of thinking I've had on the synoptics. In fact, I think I can see the way towards a complete solution. So again, thanks.
the_cave is offline  
Old 11-11-2008, 08:07 AM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave View Post
This has suddenly helped me put together the last 3-5 years of thinking I've had on the synoptics. In fact, I think I can see the way towards a complete solution.
!!

If you have a complete solution to the synoptic problem, I would sure like to see it.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 11-11-2008, 09:41 AM   #129
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky View Post
If the Second Feeding of the Multitudes was really an integral part of the original narrative of Jesus' ministry, I would say that aLuke would have been an extremely arrogant and capricious editor to completely omit it.
Why?

Do you feel the same way about the cursing of the fig tree?

Ben.
Why? Because it was meant to be such a big and highly significant event.

In comparison, the cursing of the fig tree is a relatively minor item.

Regards,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 11-11-2008, 09:57 AM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post

Why?

Do you feel the same way about the cursing of the fig tree?
Why? Because it was meant to be such a big and highly significant event.

In comparison, the cursing of the fig tree is a relatively minor item.
I spy quite a bit of subjectivity in this evaluation.

After the first feeding of the multitudes, a second does not seem all that major. The gospel of Luke is pretty long as it is. Eliminating such an obvious duplication to save room for gems like the good Samaritan is not that hard a call to make.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.