JEST2ASK

Again way over my head on this but what are the arguments offered why the information Atheos posted regarding the authors of the (in particular synoptics) Gospels is not to be accepted and the traditional / orthodox version to be valid?

Also I have heard of the Gospel of Thomas and some reasoning why it was not accepted as canon what other writtings were referenced prior to 150 CE?

I also want to thank Atheos for that most interesting post. :notworthy:

Roger Pearse

None taken; but actually it's a neutral perspective. I'd take the same view of any text.

No ancient author would agree with you, and they had infinitely more information than we do. In my view, we either base our statements on the historical record, or else we start writing imaginative (if dull) fiction.

But doesn't the fact that two are by Mark and Luke, about whom little is otherwise known, tell us otherwise? Fake gospels are nearly always by apostles. If you wanted to fake a text, you'd attribute it to Peter, not Mr. Nobody. Surely?

I think using the word 'tradition' to refer to information that comes down to us only in written form from specific authors is a bit of a fraud (not by you, I know)! Again, we either work from the data or we write fiction. The statements you repeat all seem like fiction to me, because each and every one involves finding excuses to disregard what we actually know, in order to create a story for which no ancient evidence exists.

I can't take that seriously as a methodological approach, you see. We may not believe what the ancients say; but if so, we need to be aware that we are simply uninformed, on that thesis; not that some other unevidenced story then can fill the gap. Von Daniken used this trick; debunk the facts, then insert fairy-tale. And his artwork was better...

Not going to argue a lot about this; I'm busy at the moment. But so you know what I think (as if anyone cares).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JoeWallack

JW:
The best reason than why we don't have eyewitness testimony is:

1) It is Impossible to witness Impossible events.

The next biggest problem is that the consensus of Bible scholarship is that "Mark" is the original Gospel and "Mark" is anonymous. You can not use as proof a claim that an anonymous author was an eye-witness. In order to assert that the author of "Mark" was known it has to be demonstrated that Bible scholarship is wrong here. Good luck.



Joseph

Doug Shaver

That's reading an awful lot between the lines of what he actually wrote.

GakuseiDon

I've been rereading the first few lines of the Gospel of Luke, and it is interesting what the author writes:

Luk 1:1 INASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[believed] among us,

Is Luke suggesting that those "things" were generally known, but not in an ordered narrative? I.e. along the lines of Sanders pericopes. It seems to me this implies that the information was scattered, and needed to be collected.

Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,

"Eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" -- Is Luke stating his belief that his Gospel is based on eyewitness information?

Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,

Young's Literal Translation has "having followed from the first after all things exactly". Luke seems to be suggesting that he knows exactly what he is talking about, so that he is qualified to write such an orderly account. If Luke used Mark and Q as sources, does this suggest that those sources were not orderly?

Luk 1:4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Is this suggesting that there is doubt about some of which had been instructed previously?

I know these are probably boring questions, with obvious answers in a few cases, but I find the implications interesting. On the face of it, Luke is presenting his Gospel as being based on eye-witness information. I'd be interested in people's opinions.

spamandham

There is no comma between "Eyewitnesses" and "and". If the translation is accurate, he is stating they were eyewitnesses of the word and ministers of the word.

I do not see this as a claim that they were eyewitnesses of the events. Not that it matters really. Luke can't reasonably be based on eyewitness testimony - it's absurd.

GakuseiDon

Why absurd? Luke seems to suggest that the information he has is based off eyewitness testimony, even if that has traveled a generation or two via oral transmission. Can this not be possible?

patcleaver

Luke is writing fiction and he knows that he is writing fiction. It is obvious to anyone who reads his work.

It is common in fictional stories for the narrator to claim that he was an eye-witness or that there are numerous eye-witnesses.

It was obvious to Luke's audience that his story is just a good yarn.

aChristian

It is obvious to me that he wrote history using eyewitness testimony of people that he talked with and that this is what he claims in his introduction.

Toto

Do you seriously contend that Luke knew of eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus? If so, why is that "eyewitness" testimony at all reliable?

And don't you require something more than mere possibility before you count a writing as historical? Many things are possible that did not in fact happen.