Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 11-19-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

What evidence is there of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, except the word of the writers of the gospels ?

Not quite sure what the point at issue is, but most of us are dependent on the word of witnesses for almost everything we know about everything. So I would guess that this comment needs to be more nuanced?

You are free to bring the nuances which you feel necessary, or simply useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I hope that people are not arguing in this thread that because a professional salaried and tenued historian in a US university in the late 20th century would not feel free to say "a miracle happened" in an academic text, that this tells us something about miracles? Surely it rather tells us something about the standards and conventions of this profession. It wouldn't be a true statement in other countries, or in other periods, for instance. Let's argue from data, not from veiled (or not so veiled) appeals to authority, if that is what is happening here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I am not making appeals to authority, which authority could it be ?

Huon · 11-19-2007, 08:41 AM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Quote:

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., III, xi, 7) bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. It may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. However, it is a position generally held at the present day that these titles do not go back to the first century of the Christian era.

The second word common to the titles of the canonical Gospels is the preposition kata, "according to", the exact import of which has long been a matter of discussion among Biblical scholars. Two principal significations have been ascribed to that Greek particle. Many authors have taken it to mean not "written by", but "drawn up according to the conception of", Matthew, Mark, etc. In their eyes, the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship, but to state the authority guaranteeing what is related. Most scholars, however, have preferred to regard the preposition kata as denoting authorship.

This quote is a summary (by me) of the point of view of the RCC.

Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, direct witnesses of the resurrection ?

Roger Pearse · 11-19-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Not quite sure what the point at issue is, but most of us are dependent on the word of witnesses for almost everything we know about everything. So I would guess that this comment needs to be more nuanced?

You are free to bring the nuances which you feel necessary, or simply useful.

Isn't making your statement accurate your responsibility?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I hope that people are not arguing in this thread that because a professional salaried and tenued historian in a US university in the late 20th century would not feel free to say "a miracle happened" in an academic text, that this tells us something about miracles? Surely it rather tells us something about the standards and conventions of this profession. It wouldn't be a true statement in other countries, or in other periods, for instance. Let's argue from data, not from veiled (or not so veiled) appeals to authority, if that is what is happening here.

I am not making appeals to authority, which authority could it be ?

See above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-19-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Quote:

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. ... However, it is a position generally held at the present day that these titles do not go back to the first century of the Christian era.

The 'present day', of course, being 1911.

One might reasonably ask what evidence leads to this conclusion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon · 11-19-2007, 10:45 AM

Probably the greek titles of the gospels have been changed after 1911 ?:devil3:

chrisengland · 11-19-2007, 12:28 PM

Hello
I need to address some points made but I,ll do some time this week' there have been a few misunderstandings' these are my fault because I have difficulty explaining what I meen.

But I want to ask if anyone can back up some of the things their saying with any scholary support e.g. can anyone present me with any evidence that most New Testament scholars who are not conservative don't think that Luke met Paul or are agnostic on the matter? can anyone present me with any evidence that most liberal New Testament scholars think Luke used Josephus ect
Of course I appreciate the fact that most New Testament scholars are Christians and some explinations for other things are going to be a minority because of that.
thankyou
Chris

-Jay- · 11-19-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

The point was that the Gospel writers had the same pool of potential motivations to compose fictional works as anyone else...

We can always find or imagine reasons to suppose people are lying, surely? What we need, therefore, is *evidence* that they are doing so.

My point wasn't that they necessarily did lie, but rather that the Gospel writers had other potential motivations, and we do not have a warrant for eliminating those motives out of hand.

Quote:

Now, look at what you're saying:
You're asking if it's not more reasonable to assume that the Gospel writers reported what they'd heard rather than making it up, if I understand you correctly.

If we were talking about mundane things - the otherwise unremarkable life of one street preacher out of hundreds or thousands - then you might be safe to assume that those writing about it were reporting what they'd heard.

The Gospels are different, though. They contain accounts of some rather remarkable events ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I am unclear as to whether there is any practical difference between this position and stating "whatever I do not wish to believe must be held to a higher standard that I don't apply to things I do believe."

That's not the intent of my statement at all. Consider:

If you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of starlings were roosting in a local park, you might be inclined to accept that report without checking for a lot of corroborating evidence. Starlings roosting in a park is, after all, a relatively common event.

If, however, you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of velociraptors was hanging about in a local park, and, oh, by the way, they were putting on a damn fine performance of Macbeth for the local schoolkids, I'm fairly confident you'd want to check that out for yourself, or at least investigate the sources of the report, because such a remarkable event is well beyond the normal day to day experiences that people have.

Certainly you could spend your life checking and verifying every single thing you choose to accept, but that's just not how people go through life.

I respect your opinion, Roger, but I disagree with you here.

regards,

NinJay

Roger Pearse · 11-20-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Probably the greek titles of the gospels have been changed after 1911 ?:devil3:

The certainties on this sort of matter of scholars of that era did not survive the coming of archaeology, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-20-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

We can always find or imagine reasons to suppose people are lying, surely? What we need, therefore, is *evidence* that they are doing so.

My point wasn't that they necessarily did lie, but rather that the Gospel writers had other potential motivations, and we do not have a warrant for eliminating those motives out of hand.

No, I understand entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I am unclear as to whether there is any practical difference between this position and stating "whatever I do not wish to believe must be held to a higher standard that I don't apply to things I do believe."

That's not the intent of my statement at all. Consider:

If you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of starlings were roosting in a local park, you might be inclined to accept that report without checking for a lot of corroborating evidence. Starlings roosting in a park is, after all, a relatively common event.

If, however, you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of velociraptors was hanging about in a local park, and, oh, by the way, they were putting on a damn fine performance of Macbeth for the local schoolkids, I'm fairly confident you'd want to check that out for yourself, or at least investigate the sources of the report, because such a remarkable event is well beyond the normal day to day experiences that people have.

I understand, and I don't disagree.

But consider: how does this differ, in practise, for demanding different standards of evidence for things that we already find incredible? Surely the point is that we don't bother to check the former, because it fits with what we already believe?

Getting our own prejudices (mine as well as others -- indeed especially mine!) out of the way is the main problem, in my humble opinion, to learning anything new, especially about antiquity. That's where I'm coming from.

Quote:

Certainly you could spend your life checking and verifying every single thing you choose to accept, but that's just not how people go through life.

No, and you're right. What I query is when people avoid doing so when they really need to.

Quote:

I respect your opinion, Roger, but I disagree with you here.

I appreciate your kindness, and of course I can be wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

-Jay- · 11-20-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

That's not the intent of my statement at all. Consider:

If you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of starlings were roosting in a local park, you might be inclined to accept that report without checking for a lot of corroborating evidence. Starlings roosting in a park is, after all, a relatively common event.

If, however, you read a report in the newspaper this morning that said a large flock of velociraptors was hanging about in a local park, and, oh, by the way, they were putting on a damn fine performance of Macbeth for the local schoolkids, I'm fairly confident you'd want to check that out for yourself, or at least investigate the sources of the report, because such a remarkable event is well beyond the normal day to day experiences that people have.

I understand, and I don't disagree.

But consider: how does this differ, in practise, for demanding different standards of evidence for things that we already find incredible? Surely the point is that we don't bother to check the former, because it fits with what we already believe?

The problem, in my experience, is that too often people fail to demand any evidence at all for things they should be demanding evidence for.

I've seen many instances of people who I regard very highly knowing nothing about the Bible, its writers, or the situations in which the constituent books were written beyond what their pastors or church elders say on Sunday mornings, and I know of situations where those pastors and elders have no more background than having "felt the call" and deciding to preach.

This seems unconscionable to me on it's face, but the next step is that many of these folks, when faced with something that flies in the face of their belief system, such as the Documentary Hypothesis (if they believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch) discount it out of hand because it conflicts with their beliefs, without looking any deeper than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Getting our own prejudices (mine as well as others -- indeed especially mine!) out of the way is the main problem, in my humble opinion, to learning anything new, especially about antiquity. That's where I'm coming from.

I agree. I strive to identify my own presuppositions in such a situation. Sometimes I'm more successful than others. It's a difficult thing to do. Many people don't even try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

No, and you're right. What I query is when people avoid doing so when they really need to.

Quite true.

regards,

NinJay

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

11-19-2007, 10:45 AM	#65
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Probably the greek titles of the gospels have been changed after 1911 ?:devil3:

11-19-2007, 12:28 PM	#66
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	Hello I need to address some points made but I,ll do some time this week' there have been a few misunderstandings' these are my fault because I have difficulty explaining what I meen. But I want to ask if anyone can back up some of the things their saying with any scholary support e.g. can anyone present me with any evidence that most New Testament scholars who are not conservative don't think that Luke met Paul or are agnostic on the matter? can anyone present me with any evidence that most liberal New Testament scholars think Luke used Josephus ect Of course I appreciate the fact that most New Testament scholars are Christians and some explinations for other things are going to be a minority because of that. thankyou Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.