Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-21-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Where's the OP poster?

It was a drive-by.

spin

-Jay- · 11-21-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

No, reniaa. Pretty much any scholarly discussion of the Gospels will address (and support) this viewpoint, even those by Christian authors. (The exception is Fundamentalist Christian publishers don't touch this, except to offer apologetics.) Read Raymond Brown, Helmut Koester, or Bart Ehrman. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) covers the basics of textual criticism pretty well, and is quite readable.

This appears to be an appeal to authority rather than evidence or reason, and I'm not altogether confident that you know this for a fact, rather than merely supposing it after reading Ehrman? Anyway, on matters of political or religious controversy, do we not find that the opinion of 'scholars' merely reflects those who control appointments? I'm not certain that many posters in this forum would be happy with the consensus views of scholars on various subjects anyway.

That I don't know what for a fact, Roger?

It does, on re-reading, seem somewhat like an appeal to authority. I was attempting to address reniaa's comment about baseless viewpoints by showing that there is, indeed, a scholarly base to the position. The rest of your comments there are interesting, but perhaps not central to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The authorship of the four gospels is given to us by the historical record. Are these 'independent accounts'? What does a 'dependent account' look like? Presumably the latter is one that is entirely dependent on another. None of the four qualify as dependent on this score. Or is it that the *core material* has no independent access to the data? -- the accounts of witnesses, etc? Again, all four seem to have this.

At risk of misunderstanding what you mean by the historical record, my understanding is that the authorship of the Gospels is based on traditional attributions, and that there is no solid link between any of the Gospels as we now have them and any specific author.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "entirely dependent on another". If by that you mean that one document is a straight rewrite of another (i.e. that GMt is a straight rewrite of GMk) with no extra source material, then I would take the position that none of the Gospels is entirely dependent on the others. However, I do find the comparisons between the material in GMk, GMt, and GLk to be strongly suggestive of dependency between those three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Let's not get stuck on a word, for fear of rhetoric. Let's rather say what we mean in some other word. If all we mean by 'not independent' is "we support the idea that Luke and Matthew relate some material from Mark, word for word" then probably 'not independent' is a bad phrase to use.

Quite true. Let's just say that Luke and Matthew have dependency on Mark, then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Here we are into standard 'bible difficulties' terrain, and atheists have compiled huge numbers of 'problems' for others to solve. Unfortunately the majority of these appear to be the sort of thing that anyone could hoke up between any four accounts of a car crash. The insinuation that Christianity cannot be true unless any Christian can give an explanation for all of these needs no discussion.

I make no such claim. The point isn't whether Christianity is true or not. The point is that there are details within the Gospels that tell against them being original eyewitness accounts. (The OP was, in my opinion, soft on what he was actually trying to claim. His claim appears to be that the Gospels are 4 authentic, independent accounts written by eyewitnesses, or based on accounts of eyewitnesses, to the events they describe.) Those points include historical details and linguistic characteristics that date them far enough after the described events that the original eyewitnesses are likely to have died (and yes, I realize that this doesn't mean that they definitely died). Some of these linguistic characteristics suggest dependencies between at least some of the Gospels. The perspective of the narration is also a telling point, in that the Gospels recount events from a (pardon the expression) God's eye perspective, wherein the narrative voice knows everything that happens, even things that characters do alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I was unclear which portion of your 'details' supported your position, tho? On the face of it the disagreement that you offer controverts it, surely?

Who was witness to Jesus' actions and words in the Garden at Gethsemane to record them?

I always appreciate your responses, Roger.

regards,

NinJay

reniaa · 11-21-2007, 03:30 PM

The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.

shirley knott · 11-21-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.

False in every respect.

Any comment on the demolition of the "argument" in the OP?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

reniaa · 11-21-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.

False in every respect.

Any comment on the demolition of the "argument" in the OP?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Erm why is this false? these are all verifiable sources! you can check them yourself.

Boro Nut · 11-21-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Who was witness to Jesus' actions and words in the Garden at Gethsemane to record them?

I can only imagine it must have been the same unsung camera crew who consistently boldy went where no man had gone before at least two minutes before the glory boys on the Starship Enterprise claim to have done.

Boro Nut

-Jay- · 11-21-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Who was witness to Jesus' actions and words in the Garden at Gethsemane to record them?

I can only imagine it must have been the same unsung camera crew who consistently boldy went where no man had gone before at least two minutes before the glory boys on the Starship Enterprise claim to have done.

Boro Nut

And that damn Kirk gets all the hot alien chicks....

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 11-21-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.

reniaa, please cite where you cut and pasted this from.

regards,

NinJay

Boro Nut · 11-21-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

And that damn Kirk gets all the hot alien chicks....

He's welcome to them. Personally I wouldn't touch anything over 40°C. And the green stripey ones? Let's just say 'Not even with a borrowed dick'.

Boro Nut

11-21-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

reniaa, please cite where you cut and pasted this from.
regards,
NinJay

It came from here :
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/gospelhist.html

But then, you probably knew that :-)

Iasion

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

11-21-2007, 03:30 PM	#33
reniaa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: russia Posts: 1,108	The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers, beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author. This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca. 90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.), alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry, refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels; the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the four Gospel writers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.