Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 10-01-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

They give you a target to attack--can you show that person could not have written that?

We don't need to. Absent clear evidence that a particular person did write it, we are left with "author unknown."

And you cannot merely assert "whoever wrote had to have been an eyewitness." Without some evidence, your assertion has zero credibility.

Doug Shaver · 10-01-2011, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

My agenda is discovering the truth, even though that turns out not to be what anyone else is interested in.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is just not interested in discovering the truth?

Stringbean · 10-01-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

To: Stringbean, Post #24
A book (Luke) does not look like a 2nd Century book when it fades out in 62 A.D. with nothing happening.
A source within that book that seems to conclude about 44 A.D. does not appear to have been written later than that date.
That's not circular reasoning. That's not even showing internal consistency, because there are unexplained jumps between one source and another. However, it shows we cannot simply dismiss the text when it shows chronological markers that make sense. I show that Luke looks like history. It looks like it has historical markers that help to date it and the underlying sources (Luke and Acts 1-12). That puts the burden of proof on you to refute the markers of historicity.

Its no burden of proof on me or anyone else here. You came here making claims about a book that is no more than anthology of dreams and any historical value it has is diminished simply because there are no EYEWITNESS accounts to anything that this Jesus was suppose to have done.

Encloypedia Biblica states

Quote:

that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Stringbean · 10-01-2011, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

My agenda is discovering the truth, even though that turns out not to be what anyone else is interested in.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is just not interested in discovering the truth?

No anyone that disagrees with him is going against his already preconceived notion that the gospels are history.

JoeWallack · 10-01-2011, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

[B]The standard Christian apologia for the gospels states that they were written by eyewitnesses or (in the cases of Mark and Luke) were written to give someone else’s eyewitness testimony. This works well for Mark, which is usually understood as Peter’s personal testimony, but the others are typically regarded as composite works.

JW:
This does not bode well for the rest of your post. It's clear that "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting Peter as a witness. The only part of "Mark" that credits Peter is the LE which most people would agree is forged
(I have faith that you would confess likewise). The other general problem with "Mark" here (the original Gospel), is that we can be certain that no one witnessed the story as a whole because of the extent of the Impossible. The best you can do is argue that someone who did not witness the Impossible wrote that they witnessed the impossible.

Quote:

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics. The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest”. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love” is phileo in the Greek, not “agape” as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)
John 18 launches right out with Jesus going to the Garden. Whereas Teeple believed the information here came from the Synoptics and was later enlarged upon, he more correctly called it a source. No one regards these chapters as from the Signs Source. This foundation source from John Mark is the following:
John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii.
Some of the later passages in John 20 are as likely to have been added as P-Strand, but as discussed later this may have come from the same author.
A great many scholars have believed that a Passion Narrative was the first element of the gospels to be written. It seems similarly often believed that John Mark was very young at this time and lived near Jerusalem, so his personal testimony would not tend to include narrative preceding John 18. He is the first of seven identifiable eyewitnesses in the gospels.

JW:
So you are saying that "The Passion Narrative" is the earliest part of the Gospels and John Mark is the author and you imply that John Mark's source was eyewitnesse(s) to the Passion.

In the big picture your argument consists of selective argument from Authority. The majority of Bible scholars accept that authorship of the Gospels is anonymous. You ignore this and than use selective thoughts of Bible scholarship to try and support smaller parts of your argument.

What you should be using instead is Historical Methodology consisting of Standards and Criteria. The key question is, based on Standards and Criteria, what would be good evidence for:

1) Authorship of "Mark"

2) Extent of witness testimony in "Mark"

You need witness testimony to establish these. Necessary criteria for quality witness are:

1) Age

2) Location

3) Credibility

4) Independent verification

5) Lack of contradiction

Age is a real problem here as uncertainty regarding any conclusion is directly related to age. The remaining criteria are going to have to be really good to overcome this (like multiple first and second hand witness, properly placed and credible and independently confirming each other).

So, what exactly is your witness that John Mark was the author of the Passion Narrative and his source was witnesses? So far you have mostly listed references in "John". This is Literary Criticism, not Source Criticism. Source Criticism is primary here and Literary Criticism is secondary. Besides which I've already indicated that based on Literary Criticism of "Mark", thought to be original by Authority, Peter was probably not a source for anyone.

Normally I wouldn't do this but you are looking like a Tweeb poster so I'll spell it out. First hand witness would be something from John Mark indicating he wrote the Passion Narrative and it was based on witnesses. Second hand witness would be something from someone who knew John Mark saying that John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative and it was based on witnesses. How close can you get to this? Remember, the standard is never what evidence do we have but what is the d-i-s-t-a-n-c-e between what would be quality evidence and the evidence we have.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

steve_bnk · 10-01-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

.....The literary/mythical form was not unique. A deity who becomes incarnate through human birth, carries the weight of the world, dies in the act of saving the world, and returns to the deities.....

Well, that is NOT the story in gMark at all.

In gMark, a character who seemed like a man is baptized by Jonh and after the Holy Spirit like a dove lights upon this character called Jesus he began to preach GOOD NEWS to the Jews of the Kingdom of God BUT SECRETLY wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin.

In gMark did NOT even tell his disciples he was Christ until Peter said so.

Incredibly Jesus did many miracles in gMark and NEVER once told his disciples he was Christ before Peter made the claim and Forbade his disciples from telling anyone he was Christ even AFTER Peter FIRST claimed he was Christ.

On the day Jesus died in gMark, he did NOT tell the Jews that his death signified the End of the Law or that his resurrection was for the REMISSION of Sins.

On the day Jesus was crucified in gMARK he was talking about REVENGE. Jesus warned the Sanhedrin that he would be coming back in the clouds with POWER.

It is EXTREMELY important to understand that SALVATION through Sacrifice and through the resurrection is a LATER development of the Jesus story.

The offspring of a male deity and a mortal female human who dies and in so doing provides salvation. Framed on a Jewish stage.

Adam · 10-01-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

[B]The standard Christian apologia for the gospels states that they were written by eyewitnesses or (in the cases of Mark and Luke) were written to give someone else’s eyewitness testimony. This works well for Mark, which is usually understood as Peter’s personal testimony, but the others are typically regarded as composite works.

JW:
This does not bode well for the rest of your post. It's clear that "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting Peter as a witness. The only part of "Mark" that credits Peter is the LE which most people would agree is forged
(I have faith that you would confess likewise). The other general problem with "Mark" here (the original Gospel), is that we can be certain that no one witnessed the story as a whole because of the extent of the Impossible. The best you can do is argue that someone who did not witness the Impossible wrote that they witnessed the impossible.

I agree that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition. Whatever I say about eyewitnesses applies only to what they wrote within the gospels, not any entire gospel. These lesser sources do not include any monumental events that could not have escaped historical notice. They do include miracles that you define as impossible, but that's your opinion. For your purposes you can regard any such verses as lies or misunderstandings, but you still need to consider whether I have identified the standpoint of the author of the source.

Quote:

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics. The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest”. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love” is phileo in the Greek, not “agape” as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

JW:
So you are saying that "The Passion Narrative" is the earliest part of the Gospels and John Mark is the author and you imply that John Mark's source was eyewitnesse(s) to the Passion.

As I said at the start of the above quote from my Post #1, I do not regard the Passion Narrative as chronologically first, but I agree with many others that it is the building block on which all the rest is built. Somebody wrote it, and my case is that John Mark is the most likely person. I cannot prove that he was "the disciple known to the high priest", but apparently someone was. If that person was the source, he was an eyewitness. No one else but Peter adds information, so one of them (or both) is the most likely source. Peter and John Mark got together in 44 A.D., which is the most likely time for writing, as little about Peter appears subsequently in Acts of the Apostles. If they wrote in 44 A.D. we have eyewitness testimony. (See my post #23 quoting my earlier article basically previewing Peter, my fourth eyewitness. Also are you aware I have posted my second eyewitness at Post #18 and my third at Post #38?)

The rest of your post is rather condescending, so I'll skip it (for now at least). I have an M. A. in History, so I'll make my own judgments on what is hisstorical evidence. The greatest Higher Critic ever, Adolf Harnack, reached similar conclusions on date and provenance.

Horatio Parker · 10-01-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

As I said at the start of the above quote from my Post #1, I do not regard the Passion Narrative as chronologically first, but I agree with many others that it is the building block on which all the rest is built. Somebody wrote it, and my case is that John Mark is the most likely person.

I'm not a historian, but it looks like speculation to me. Your arguments depend on the passion of your commitment to the truth, your degree and the reputations of the scholars you name.

None of that adds up to eyewitnesses.

JoeWallack · 10-01-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

The rest of your post is [fill in the blank] rather condescending, so I'll skip it (for now at least). I have an M. A. in History, so I'll make my own judgments on what is hisstorical evidence. The greatest Higher Critic ever, Adolf Harnack, reached similar conclusions on date and provenance.

JW:
It's clear that you do not know anything about Historical Methodology. This isn't Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. This Forum is based on Science. You need to read the Archives here on related Topics to get up to speed. At this point you should be doing more reading and less writing. This is the Major Leagues. There is no higher Forum. You do not categorically dismiss detailed analysis per my last post or you will be perceived as a Troll or Apologist.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Stringbean · 10-01-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
This does not bode well for the rest of your post. It's clear that "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting Peter as a witness. The only part of "Mark" that credits Peter is the LE which most people would agree is forged
(I have faith that you would confess likewise). The other general problem with "Mark" here (the original Gospel), is that we can be certain that no one witnessed the story as a whole because of the extent of the Impossible. The best you can do is argue that someone who did not witness the Impossible wrote that they witnessed the impossible.

I agree that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition. Whatever I say about eyewitnesses applies only to what they wrote within the gospels, not any entire gospel. These lesser sources do not include any monumental events that could not have escaped historical notice. They do include miracles that you define as impossible, but that's your opinion. For your purposes you can regard any such verses as lies or misunderstandings, but you still need to consider whether I have identified the standpoint of the author of the source.

Quote:

JW:
So you are saying that "The Passion Narrative" is the earliest part of the Gospels and John Mark is the author and you imply that John Mark's source was eyewitnesse(s) to the Passion.

As I said at the start of the above quote from my Post #1, I do not regard the Passion Narrative as chronologically first, but I agree with many others that it is the building block on which all the rest is built. Somebody wrote it, and my case is that John Mark is the most likely person. I cannot prove that he was "the disciple known to the high priest", but apparently someone was. If that person was the source, he was an eyewitness. No one else but Peter adds information, so one of them (or both) is the most likely source. Peter and John Mark got together in 44 A.D., which is the most likely time for writing, as little about Peter appears subsequently in Acts of the Apostles. If they wrote in 44 A.D. we have eyewitness testimony. (See my post #23 quoting my earlier article basically previewing Peter, my fourth eyewitness. Also are you aware I have posted my second eyewitness at Post #18 and my third at Post #38?)

The rest of your post is rather condescending, so I'll skip it (for now at least). I have an M. A. in History, so I'll make my own judgments on what is hisstorical evidence. The greatest Higher Critic ever, Adolf Harnack, reached similar conclusions on date and provenance.

Quote:

Whatever I say about eyewitnesses applies only to what they wrote within the gospels, not any entire gospel.

That is where you fail. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, not part of them or all of them, none of them are.

Quote:

I have an M. A. in History, so I'll make my own judgments on what is hisstorical evidence.

So, apparently you should go back and get a refund on that degree.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.