Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 06-12-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

So; we must at least read the texts for what they say in order to determine the genre?

We can also look at how the earliest Christians themselves understood the texts, since they would been much closer to the culture from where those texts emerged.

aa5874 · 06-12-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

So; we must at least read the texts for what they say in order to determine the genre?

We can also look at how the earliest Christians themselves understood the texts, since they would been much closer to the culture from where those texts emerged.

The earliest Christian writers have DENIED that Jesus was a Man. Why do we have to go back over this Again and Again?

We have Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen who all claimed Jesus was NOT a man.

In "Against Heresies", Irenaeus IDENTIFIED the Heretics like Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites who PREACHED the Heresy that Jesus was a man and mentioned the gospel called according to Mark so it is just a total waste of time to just go over what has been ESTABLISHED or BELIEVED 1800 years ago.

Tertullian who mentioned gMark claimed Jesus was God Incarnate. See "On the Flesh of Christ".

Origen in "Against Celsus" who also mentioned gMark also claimed Jesus was TRULY God Incarnate.

It just cannot be EXPECTED that gMark is the biography of a man when it was CANONIZED.

Steven Carr · 06-12-2011, 11:45 PM

EHRMAN
Biographers often relied heavily on oral information that had circulated for long periods of time. Indeed, many of them expressed a preference for oral sources; these at least could be interrogated!... Many of these stories were drawn from narratives that an author inherited from oral traditions, such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and stories about conflicts.

CARR
I knew there was a good reason why 'Luke' and 'Matthew' used such a high percentage of 'Mark' .

Like the rest of ancient biographers, they relied heavily on oral sources, and had a preference for oral sources.

Hence they would copy whole chunks of a previous literary work.

It all makes sense the way Bart explains it.

The logic seems to go.

'Luke' was an ancient biographer and would have used oral sources in preference to written works.

Luke used the gospel of Mark and or Matthew/Q (delete as appropriate)

Therefore, there were plenty of oral sources available to early Christians.

This logic seems flawed to me, but then I am not a professional NT scholar.

jgoodguy · 06-13-2011, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

EHRMAN
Biographers often relied heavily on oral information that had circulated for long periods of time. Indeed, many of them expressed a preference for oral sources; these at least could be interrogated!... Many of these stories were drawn from narratives that an author inherited from oral traditions, such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and stories about conflicts.

CARR
I knew there was a good reason why 'Luke' and 'Matthew' used such a high percentage of 'Mark' .

Like the rest of ancient biographers, they relied heavily on oral sources, and had a preference for oral sources.

Hence they would copy whole chunks of a previous literary work.

It all makes sense the way Bart explains it.

The logic seems to go.

'Luke' was an ancient biographer and would have used oral sources in preference to written works.

Luke used the gospel of Mark and or Matthew/Q (delete as appropriate)

Therefore, there were plenty of oral sources available to early Christians.

This logic seems flawed to me, but then I am not a professional NT scholar.

Yea that is flawed, but Bart explains it as the oral preexisted all of the gospels Sooo

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
Therefore the gospel writers used Oral Traditions.

or

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
The gospel of Mark was written before the gospel of Luke.
There is unique material in the gospel of Luke not in the gospel of Mark.
Therefore Oral Traditions are a source of the unique material in Luke.

Then there is

Cultures with low literacy used oral traditions instead of written material.
Christianity developed in a low literacy culture.
Therefore Christianity used oral traditions.

Now exactly what those oral traditions contained is a big question, but trying to assert that Christianity did not have oral traditions is rather like saying that the New Testament did not have redactors.

Toto · 06-13-2011, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...Bart explains it as the oral preexisted all of the gospels Sooo

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
Therefore the gospel writers used Oral Traditions.

Adventures in illogic.

We have no evidence that oral traditions existed.

The conclusion is that therefore the gospel writers would have used oral traditions if they existed. Nothing can be concluded about the existence of oral traditions or whether the gospel writers used them.

Quote:

or

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
The gospel of Mark was written before the gospel of Luke.
There is unique material in the gospel of Luke not in the gospel of Mark.
Therefore Oral Traditions are a source of the unique material in Luke.

Unless, of course, Luke made it up.

Quote:

...

Now exactly what those oral traditions contained is a big question, but trying to assert that Christianity did not have oral traditions is rather like saying that the New Testament did not have redactors.

Nonsense. We see the evidence of the redactors. We see no evidence of oral traditions. We see lots of evidence of the gospel writers using written traditions, in particular the Septuagint.

jgoodguy · 06-13-2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...Bart explains it as the oral preexisted all of the gospels Sooo

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
Therefore the gospel writers used Oral Traditions.

Adventures in illogic.

We have no evidence that oral traditions existed.

The conclusion is that therefore the gospel writers would have used oral traditions if they existed. Nothing can be concluded about the existence of oral traditions or whether the gospel writers used them.

Quote:

or

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
The gospel of Mark was written before the gospel of Luke.
There is unique material in the gospel of Luke not in the gospel of Mark.
Therefore Oral Traditions are a source of the unique material in Luke.

Unless, of course, Luke made it up.

Quote:

...

Now exactly what those oral traditions contained is a big question, but trying to assert that Christianity did not have oral traditions is rather like saying that the New Testament did not have redactors.

Nonsense. We see the evidence of the redactors. We see no evidence of oral traditions. We see lots of evidence of the gospel writers using written traditions, in particular the Septuagint.

Ok according to Toto, there were no oral traditions, no gossip, no first century urban legends and no verbalized any thing. I guess folks did not talk.

Steven Carr · 06-13-2011, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Yea that is flawed, but Bart explains it as the oral preexisted all of the gospels Sooo

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
Therefore the gospel writers used Oral Traditions.

But Bart is a scholar, and he knows that 'Luke' and 'Matthew' used Mark, while Bart, being a professional, also knows that scholars have shown that ancient writers preferred oral traditions.

So the logic is :-

Gospel writers , being ancient biographers, would have used oral traditions.

Except when they didn't.

So therefore, we can conclude that they used oral traditions.

Steven Carr · 06-13-2011, 02:25 AM

EHRMAN
The role of the miraculous, for example, was typically pronounced in the life of a religious figure...

CARR
Of course, Paul in 1 Corinthians chastises Jews for expecting the religious figure of Jesus to have played a role of the miraculous.

It seems these miracles only came later.

What religious figure does not have miracle stories attached to him , until later than his very first followers?

A religious figure who never existed, of course.

jgoodguy · 06-13-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Yea that is flawed, but Bart explains it as the oral preexisted all of the gospels Sooo

Oral traditions existed before the gospels.
Ancient writers preferred oral traditions.
Gospels were written by ancient writers.
Therefore the gospel writers used Oral Traditions.

But Bart is a scholar, and he knows that 'Luke' and 'Matthew' used Mark, while Bart, being a professional, also knows that scholars have shown that ancient writers preferred oral traditions.

So the logic is :-

Gospel writers , being ancient biographers, would have used oral traditions.

Except when they didn't.

So therefore, we can conclude that they used oral traditions.

I'll buy that, with the caveat that we have no real clue what oral traditions were used or if the writings based on said oral traditions survived orthodox redaction, interpolation or destruction.

aa5874 · 06-13-2011, 07:19 AM

It is MOST flawed that the Gospels are biographies of a man once they are FOUND CANONIZED. The Church writers Identified Heretics that preached the Heresy that Jesus was an ordinary man like Carpocrates, Cerinthus and the Ebionites.

We have "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, "Prescription Against the Heretics by Tertullian and "Refutation of All Heresies" by Hippolytus that mentioned the Heretics who promoted the Heresy that Jesus was a man.

The NT CANON is a NON-HERETICAL Compilation of the Church and SIMPLY cannot contain the very HERESY which the Church condemned.

This is a BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL expectation of the NT CANON.

But, we ALSO know that there were OTHER doctrines or System of Beliefs in antiquity that were COMPLETELY invented and the the INVENTORS of the System were IDENTIFIED.

It is just TOTALLY unacceptable for Bart Ehrman to claim that the Jesus story could NOT have been invented just like Valentinus, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, Marcus, Marcos and Marcion INVENTED their System of BELIEF and was ACKNOWLEDGED as the INVENTORS of their Systems.

See "Against Heresies" 1

Excerpts of The doctrine of the Valentinians

Quote:

1. THEY maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable
heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon,(4)
whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being
invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained
throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and
quiescence.....

Excerpts of The Doctrine of Ptolemy and Colorbasus .

Quote:

..... 1. But the followers of Ptolemy say(2) that he [Bythos] has two
consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennoae
and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of
producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again,
these two affections, or powers, Ennoea and Thelesis, having
intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of
Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction.....

Excerpts of The Doctrine of Marcus.

Quote:

...... 1. This Marcus(2) then, declaring that he alone was the matrix and
receptacle of the Sige of Colorbasus, inasmuch as he was
only-begotten, has brought to the birth in some such way as follows
that which was committed to him of the defective Euthymesis. He
declares that the infinitely exalted Tetrad descended upon him from
the invisible and indescribable places in the form of a woman (for the
world could not have borne it coming in its male form), and expounded
to him alone its own nature, and the origin of all things, which it
had never before revealed to any one either of gods or men......

Excerpts of The doctrine of the Marcosians

Quote:

.....1. Blending in one the production of their own AEons, and the
straying and recovery of the sheep [spoken of in the Gospel(1)], these
persons endeavour to set forth things in a more mystical style, while
they refer everything to numbers, maintaining that the universe has
been formed out of a Monad and a Dyad. And then, reckoning from unity
on to four, they thus generate the Decad. For when one, two, three,
and four are added together, they give rise to the number of the ten
AEons.....

It is CLEAR that people of antiquity INVENTED their Systems of BELIEF.

It is just so illogical to assume that the Gospels are Biographies of a man when the very authors did NOT describe Jesus as a MAN and that even if Jesus was described as a man that such a description does NOT exclude the Gospels from being NON-BIOGRAPHICAL.

The very PLUTARCH in "Romulus" described the Romulus and Remus as BROTHERS, and BORN of the SAME Woman but "Romulus" is STILL considered a work of Fiction or a MYTH fable.

It is extremely MIND BOGGLING that the Canonised Gospels from the Church who DENIED Jesus had a human father and described Jesus as God Incarnate are being claimed to be the Biographies of a man by so-called Scholars.

The Gospels are NOT the biographies of a man with a human father.

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

06-12-2011, 11:45 PM	#43
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	EHRMAN Biographers often relied heavily on oral information that had circulated for long periods of time. Indeed, many of them expressed a preference for oral sources; these at least could be interrogated!... Many of these stories were drawn from narratives that an author inherited from oral traditions, such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and stories about conflicts. CARR I knew there was a good reason why 'Luke' and 'Matthew' used such a high percentage of 'Mark' . Like the rest of ancient biographers, they relied heavily on oral sources, and had a preference for oral sources. Hence they would copy whole chunks of a previous literary work. It all makes sense the way Bart explains it. The logic seems to go. 'Luke' was an ancient biographer and would have used oral sources in preference to written works. Luke used the gospel of Mark and or Matthew/Q (delete as appropriate) Therefore, there were plenty of oral sources available to early Christians. This logic seems flawed to me, but then I am not a professional NT scholar.

06-13-2011, 02:25 AM	#48
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	EHRMAN The role of the miraculous, for example, was typically pronounced in the life of a religious figure... CARR Of course, Paul in 1 Corinthians chastises Jews for expecting the religious figure of Jesus to have played a role of the miraculous. It seems these miracles only came later. What religious figure does not have miracle stories attached to him , until later than his very first followers? A religious figure who never existed, of course.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.