Vorkosigan

Well, I like its chewiness.

Mal, Paul Tobin's site Rejection of Pascal's Wager has a good intro discussion of the problems with the NIV.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Holding again:



Vinnie

Family Man

I'd like to see your response to that, Vinnie.

Vinnie

Of some relevance:

On Roger Pearse's Tertullian homepage under Tacitus this is said:


I don't know how early Annals is attested in this list (I don't have Mendell's work) or not or how extensive the first and second century references are. But I would assume that even if other works are attested earlier, Annals may be able to be attributed to Tacitus on a stylistic basis or through some other means. Honestly, I do not care. If the evidence for authorship of Annals by Tacitus is of the same quality as that of authorship for the Gospel of Matthew by Matthew then I would have to state the we do not have good historical reasons for believing Tacitus authored Annals. That is simple enough and if the historian thinks otherwise, he or she is incorrect.

And note that Holding did not say Matthew authored GMatt but that he was the authority behind the tradition.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Not to mention that Matthew appears to have been used anonymously for almost a century......

Vorkosigan

Not only that, but there is no incentive to append any particular writer's name to the Annals of Tacitus, at least as far as I can see, whereas appending an apostle's name to the Gospels is a useful apologetic strategy.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

That too.

I can't talk to Holding anymore. He drives me nuts and I am ashamed of my public behavior at tweb recently over him.

Vinnie

diana

Check his sig. That is his goal. What he won't admit is that pissing you off and generally behaving like an ass is the only way he can "win" an argument.

I've yet to see him deliver any knockout punches. His boxing strategy appears to consist of strutting around and screaming insults until his opponent leaves the ring out of disgust. And perhaps having discovered once again that you can bang all day on the door of the deaf. Then holding declares himself the victor.

I have some respect for any Christians who feel at least a little associative shame at his behavior.

If it helps, step away from a day or two, then return when you've had time to let your frustration cool off. It helps me a lot. Which reminds me, I'm due to respond to him by now, I'm sure....

d

Vinnie

Vork, I see you have taken up the subject with JP. Diana, thanks for the advice but I think I am just going to have to completely ignore Holding for an indefinite period of time. Sustained conversation is just too painful:

Wasn't one of Holding's earlier comments "overarchinging and vague":

Holding: "Quotations in antiquity did not consistently name authors."

He seems to have done what he accused you of.

Further, Holding said this: “It starts with the assumption of anonymity, then gives a reason for attribution, without showing why anonymity should be assumed in the first place.”

But doesn’t he beg the question himself? He said this: “Quotations in antiquity did not consistently name authors.” Doesn’t that defense assume they knew the authors but didn’t name them? It assumes they were not anonymous doesn’t it? Is whats good for the goose good for the gander?

Along these lines:

It appears that the Gospels follow the tradition of anonymous publication and they were quoted anonymously for many years and how they were quoted and used is important as well. I don’t see how you were begging the question.

Further:

He can ask why a gospel would be attributed to Mark rather than to Peter directly if late 2d Christians were making up names. Or why Luke was chosen but these types of arguments fail. Christian detective work in the second century may have used the “we” passages in Acts to conclude that this anonymous document was authored by Luke. Though I do not rule out Lucan authorship of Luke-Acts myself. Scholars generally recognize that the strongest case for traditional authorship goes to Luke-Acts.

Given that Mark, apparently, was used for such a long time without being considered authored by Peter, it could scarcely have been magically attributed to Peter at such a late date by Christians. As noted, Holding might argue that Christians wanted a Gospel authored by Peter but tradition overcame their “want” and forced them to attribute it to Mark. Holding might buy that but we can offer a just as valid alternative solution:

Holding could counter with asking why they didn’t attribute Mark to Silas (see 1 Pet 5:12 and Acts 15:22).

But this only goes to show that this is guesswork here. We don’t know the minds of second century Christians or how they were thinking on this. We are guessing here. It may be informed guessing but guessing it is.

Further, he may try to turn this into and argument for Matthean authorship. Why would the Christians attribute to Matthew a gospel that was not attributed to him for so long? But this can be countered. It may have been common knowledge that Peter didn’t author any gospel but that might not have even been a question in the minds of 2d Christians as Matthew appears to have been a much less prominent apostle than Peter. Also:

I pointed out material on Papias in that thread and JP responded if I remember correctly.

As stated, reading the minds of late 2d Christians is largely guesswork. The strongest argument in favor of anonymous publication seems to be two-fold in my view:

1). As noted above, the Gospels did not follow the standard practice of naming themselves but seemed to follow the practice of anonymous publication.

2). How the gospels were used and cited until the late 2d. Lets look at some (See follow up post)

Vinnie

I just saw your next response. I might dispute this depending on what exactly you meant:

I would add to that the notion that the gospels do not follow the common practice of naming themselves but, apparently, the practice of anonymous publication.

Vinnie