Revisionist

Indeed, it is, and I don't care. It's fine and all that you're a rogue maverick. In fact, I often enjoy your rants against mainstream scholars. But Richbee asked for evidence against his position, and seeing how Markian priority is accepted by the vast majority of scholars, I think this counts, seeing as how there is no way to reconcile Papias with Markian priority.

Amaleq13

Which of the authorship claimants identifies such source(s)?

Papias, as the Eagles sang, heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who...

If the people in 180 had more texts or reliable sources of information than we do, they were annoyingly reticent in mentioning, let alone identifying, them.

S.C.Carlson

REO Speedwagon?

CX

After somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years studying this question as a layman I would have to say the only solid answer is "we don't know". There are lots of good arguments against the traditional authorial attributions (some of which are reference in this thread), but as to who they actually were we have no idea and probably never will. This is not nearly so comforting as having names to give to these books, but such is life. An awful lot of things about antiquity are like that. Schnelle's book, listed in the reading list, is a good middle-of-the-road explanation of why modern scholars don't think the original authorial attributions are correct.

Amaleq13

Good call!! :thumbs:

Yuri Kuchinsky

Obviously you're not interested in investigating these things for yourself, and just happy to parrot what everybody already 'knows'.

Yuri.

judge

What kind of evidence would you expext to find if it were a translation?

Richbee

Well first off the skeptics have been unable to muster any evidence to contradict the traditions of the Faith, and Christians don't need to PROVE the traditional set of authors.

In summery:

If the four Gospel accounts were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (as the earliest evidence indicates), then Matthew certainly was a witness, as was John – the two being apostles of Jesus. Moreover, Mark was the son of Mary (Acts 12:12), and a companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13); he thus stands in close proximity to the events of Calvary.

Finally, Luke was a first-class historian who investigated the matter with the greatest of care (Lk. 1:1-4). And since he was a physician (Col. 4:14), thus of a scientific background, he would have been persuaded of a resurrection from the dead only on the ground of the most compelling evidence....[ and personally met and knew the first hand eyewitnessess.]

EDIT ADD:

Credit: Wayne Jackson

http://www.christiancourier.com/penp...wsDisputes.htm

"A Skeptic Disputes the Resurrection"

RUmike

Do you have this little paragraph memorized, or do you just copy and paste it everytime you use it? I just responded to this (word for word) in another thread of yours less than 5 minutes ago!

For the purpose of this discussion only I will grant that Luke wrote the gospel bearing his name. Now, just because you think he's a doctor, how do you know that "he would have been persuaded of a resurrection from the dead only on the ground of the most compelling evidence and personally met and knew the first hand eyewitnessess"? How do you know that? Please cite your evidence. Just because he's a dotor? You don't know anything about his level of credulity when it comes to requiring evidence for a belief. You don't know if he was a good doctor or not. Where did he learn his trade, and from whom? What eyewitnesses did he speak with? Was he a nice guy? Did he fart after eating too much Taco Bell? The point is, you don't know jack shit about this guy, yet you make absolutely unverifiable claims as if they were fact. And we all know that doctors from about 2,000 years ago were top-notch medical professionals

Seriously Richbee, your absolutely ridiculous claims that you pulled from some apologetic website or book won't hold any weight around here, and they certainly wouldn't hold any weight when discussing with actual scholars, even ones on the more conservative end.

Julian

Nope, he lifted it from here: http://www.christiancourier.com/penp...wsDisputes.htm

Richbee, it is bad form to copy from a website and not link to it. Isn't an attempt to pass off the words of others as your own dishonest?

Julian