ApostateAbe

People have only ever found the Old Testament when reading "Mark"? Do you mean, "Some people..."? Some people find whatever the hell they want while reading the Christian canon.

It is something the scholars seem to believe, but I don't have evidence at hand that Mark was sourced from an oral tradition, so I am not going to stand behind that claim. Neither was it relevant to the point I was making about applying the criterion of multiple attestation to the gospels. If you think maybe Mark was sourced from something written, then that is fine by me.

Ehrman applies criteria to parse the history from the gospels, and he isn't a superskeptic who dismisses all of it just because some of it is unlikely, because that would be absurd in light of how the gospels really did get some things right and in light of how the gospels contain elements that are awkward for the Christian religion.

Steven Carr

'Ehrman applies criteria to parse the history from the gospels...'

No,I just saw Ehrman trash the idea that the Gospels contain history.

There is no evidence that Judas, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Nicodemus etc etc existed.

The sheer number of this vast cast of characters who no Christian ever wrote about when writing letters to each other means that Ehrman was right to trash the Gospels as history.

And, of course, Ehrman spends a couple of minutes at the start telling people how real historians do real history.

And , amazingly enough, his account of how real historians do real history does not include any of the Biblical criteria by which Biblical historians do Biblical history.

Toto

Unfortunately, Steven Carr has not explained the background here. It's one of those issues that was hashed to death here before you started posting in the forum.

An earlier generation of scholars had decided that since the events in Mark appeared to happen around 30 CE, but Mark was written around 70 CE, that Mark must have incorporated oral history. But there is no evidence for this oral history - it is just a hypothetical construct (an epicycle if you will) to explain where Mark got his information. But modern scholars who have analyzed Mark have found that every part of it has some literary reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. There is nothing that needs to be explained by oral history.

But all of the gospels appear to use Mark.

You've stated this position many times before, and it still makes no sense.

ApostateAbe

If you saw Ehrman trash the idea that the gospels contain history, you may like to read a few of Ehrman's books, or you can listen to Ehrman with a little more care and critical thinking, because you may be selectively listening to Ehrman's lecture, and the books may clarify the issues in greater detail. I can guarantee you that Ehrman would not trash the gospels as history the same way you would. "No history here, into the fiction sections of the libraries it goes."

aa5874

Your post is all speculation. It cannot be shown that gMark came from an oral tradition.

And it cannot be shown that gLuke was sourced from "Q" and "L".

No actual document have been found called "Q".


When ONLY apologetic sources made claims about Jesus then those claims cannot be ASSUMED to be independent.

The resurrection or crucifixion of Jesus cannot be assumed to be independently attested since they may all have been just simply believed by the DUPED and repeated by the means of "Chinese Whispers".

If apologetic sources are considered independent then Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, was equal to God and did walk on water.


The belief that Vespasian had healing powers has NO EFFECT whatsoever on the historicity of the Emperor.

Clivedurdle

As did King James I.

Must be true.

ApostateAbe

No, actually, I think those people probably didn't exist. We can't trust the sources that testify to their existence.

Solo

It started as a speculation on what was in the "primitive" Matthew by Schleiermacher and Weisse, two German theologians, in 1830's and developped into a coherent two-source synoptic theory by Holtzmann in 1860's, first based in speculation on an off-hand remark by Eusebius (HE 3.39.16) that Papius siad Matthew had compiled the sayings (logia of Christ) in the Hebrew language. What is very curious about this that both Weisse and Holtzmann apparently gave credence to the theory that Luke knew this "primitive" collection of Matthew but were adamant that he did not know the later, received gospel by him.
When this presumed source became designated as Q (=Quelle, german for "source"), is still debated. Apparently, it was first used as such by Johannes Weiss in 1890.

Jiri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Yalla,

Stories do not have to be plausible for people to believe them, they just have to satisfy some desire.

According to a Harris Poll from March, 2010,
57% of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim, 45% believe he was not born in America and 24% think that he may be the anti-Christ.

Human beings are simply not constructed with a filter that allows them to know fiction from Non-fiction. It is only through a multitude of educational processes that we learn how to do so, some of us very well and some of us not so well.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Carr

I did see Ehrman trash the idea that the Gospels contain history, and showed you the video where he did it.

I also pointed out that Ehrman, at the start of the video, told you how real historians did real history, and none of his criteria were how Biblical historians did Biblical history.