Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gooch's dad · 05-12-2003, 06:53 PM

In this thread over at TW , I believe I've just stomped Turkel/Holding's claim about "authorial attestation" for the gospels. Sure, all the extant manuscripts have "gospel according to..." on them. Big deal, the earliest complete gospel dates to roughly 200 CE, at least 50 years after the early church fathers had assigned names to the extant stories.

But how can you say that the "gospel according to Matthew" is authored by Matthew, if it contains virtually all of the "gospel according to Mark" in it? It seems quite clear to me that destroys any claims of authorial attestation, no matter how many later copies have the name "Matthew" on them.

And Turkel had absolutely no response to Vorkosigan's devastating post comparing eastern historical records to those that survive in the west. Michael, you rock! :notworthy

-Kelly, PWI

Evangelion · 05-12-2003, 11:48 PM

I have to say, that was quite a beatdown. :notworthy

Vinnie · 05-13-2003, 03:25 AM

If he uses the Papias tradition to argue for Mark/Peter see the recent discussion on this here between PKand myself.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-13-2003, 03:58 AM

Did Holding actually use the claim that the Gospels are titled? LOL

And I think Holding had a point in response to Turton. Compared to other copied works in antiquity (especially the Greco-Roman area) the NT does well. The pious pastor and the village atheist all miss the point here on this one.

The real question is what happened slightly after ground zero when the texts were writtensome of which assume the texts as we have them are "generally" accurate. If one does not have a good reconstructed text of GJohn how could one say it was redacted

Textual Difficulties Associated with Christian Works and the NT.

Early on there was no slavish devotion to the exact wording and the text could be and was meant to be expanded upon (brown).

GJohn was redacted.

Q was redacted at least once.

We have four forged endings of GMark.

GThomas was redacted at least once.

GMatthew and GLuke may have used different versions of Mark
and Luke when writing their Gospels. Gospel composition was a fluid process. Form criticism tells us that the shaping of the Gospel material was a fluid process as well.

The number of alterations made in light of doctrinal considerations is difficult to assess (Metzger).

Numerous insertions, omitions and alterations are found in the text. For example, the pericope de adultera in GJohn 7-8.

Vinnie

CX · 05-13-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
...the earliest complete gospel dates to roughly 200 CE, at least 50 years after the early church fathers had assigned names to the extant stories.

Hardly. The first mostly complete NT MSS of any gospel (and even these have some lacunae) are contained in the 4th century codices Sinaiticus (

) and Vaticanus
(B) From a previous thread ...

Quote:

Manuscripts prior to 200 C.E.:

P52 ca. 110-125 C.E. contains 7 partial verses of GJn

P90 2nd century contains 11 verses of GJn 3 of which overlap with P52

P98 Possibly 2nd Century conatins 7 verses of Revelation

Manuscripts from the turn of the 3rd century:

P46 ca. 200 C.E. contains partial to substantial copies of 9 Pauline epistles

P66 ca. 200 C.E. contains partial copy of GJn (more substantial than P52 or P90)

P77 ca. 2nd or 3rd century contains 9 verses of GMt (first attestation of this gospel outside church fathers)

It's worth noting that the precise dating of P52 is a matter of considerable controversy.

Additionally, the first attestation of GLk and GMk in the MSS tradition (not including the Church Fathers) does not occur until the 3rd century in P4 and P45 respectively.

CX · 05-13-2003, 08:53 AM

Incidentally, Turkel is such a ridiculous caricature of a scholar and apologist I am continually stunned why anyone wastes time trying to have a discussion with him. I sooner carry on a discussion about 17th century Elizabethan poetry with a potted fern.

MortalWombat · 05-14-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
Incidentally, Turkel is such a ridiculous caricature of a scholar and apologist I am continually stunned why anyone wastes time trying to have a discussion with him. I sooner carry on a discussion about 17th century Elizabethan poetry with a potted fern.

CX, I think that is totally uncalled for and highly insulting

... to the fern.

Evangelion · 05-14-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

I sooner carry on a discussion about 17th century Elizabethan poetry with a potted fern.

Powerful imagery indeed!

Steven Carr · 05-15-2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
Incidentally, Turkel is such a ridiculous caricature of a scholar and apologist I am continually stunned why anyone wastes time trying to have a discussion with him. I sooner carry on a discussion about 17th century Elizabethan poetry with a potted fern.

As Holding struggles to distinguish 19th century Victorian poetry from works written 2,000 years ago, such a conversation would be far more stimulating for you.

http://www.tektonics.org/tillpfft03.html

'Wiser and better read scholars like Caird note that the language of hyperbole is no different than a passage from Vergil's Fourth Ecologue , which speaks of "summers of snakeless meadow, unlaborious earth and oarless sea" as expected benefits of the imperial rule of Augustus'

Apparently Holding thinks really wise, well read scholars (like him) confuse Tennyson with Roman authors.

Watch JP (Iraqi Information Minister) deny that Caird attributed this to Vergil.

'In answer to the charge, however: Caird did not attribute the quotation to anyone; his full paragraph notes Is. 11:1-9 and that it has been "rightly compared with Vergil's Fourth Eclogue, the Pollio, which for all its air of enchantment ('summers of the snakeless meadow, unlaborious earth and oarless sea'), is an elegant piece of court flattery…" and gives no credit to Tennyson or Vergil for the quote - not that it matters, since the point is the same regardless, and Skeptic X is spreading only paranoia when he tries to spin this out as a case of citing Vergil to impress readers.)

How can even a bare-faced liar like Holding think he can deceive people into believing that he is not attributing a line from Tennyson to Vergil's Fourth Eclogue?

05-12-2003, 06:53 PM	#1
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Score: Kelly 1, Michael 1, Turkel 0 In this thread over at TW , I believe I've just stomped Turkel/Holding's claim about "authorial attestation" for the gospels. Sure, all the extant manuscripts have "gospel according to..." on them. Big deal, the earliest complete gospel dates to roughly 200 CE, at least 50 years after the early church fathers had assigned names to the extant stories. But how can you say that the "gospel according to Matthew" is authored by Matthew, if it contains virtually all of the "gospel according to Mark" in it? It seems quite clear to me that destroys any claims of authorial attestation, no matter how many later copies have the name "Matthew" on them. And Turkel had absolutely no response to Vorkosigan's devastating post comparing eastern historical records to those that survive in the west. Michael, you rock! :notworthy -Kelly, PWI

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

05-12-2003, 11:48 PM	#2
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	I have to say, that was quite a beatdown. :notworthy

05-13-2003, 03:25 AM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	If he uses the Papias tradition to argue for Mark/Peter see the recent discussion on this here between PKand myself. Vinnie

05-13-2003, 03:58 AM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Did Holding actually use the claim that the Gospels are titled? LOL And I think Holding had a point in response to Turton. Compared to other copied works in antiquity (especially the Greco-Roman area) the NT does well. The pious pastor and the village atheist all miss the point here on this one. The real question is what happened slightly after ground zero when the texts were writtensome of which assume the texts as we have them are "generally" accurate. If one does not have a good reconstructed text of GJohn how could one say it was redacted Textual Difficulties Associated with Christian Works and the NT. Early on there was no slavish devotion to the exact wording and the text could be and was meant to be expanded upon (brown). GJohn was redacted. Q was redacted at least once. We have four forged endings of GMark. GThomas was redacted at least once. GMatthew and GLuke may have used different versions of Mark and Luke when writing their Gospels. Gospel composition was a fluid process. Form criticism tells us that the shaping of the Gospel material was a fluid process as well. The number of alterations made in light of doctrinal considerations is difficult to assess (Metzger). Numerous insertions, omitions and alterations are found in the text. For example, the pericope de adultera in GJohn 7-8. Vinnie

05-13-2003, 08:53 AM	#6
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Incidentally, Turkel is such a ridiculous caricature of a scholar and apologist I am continually stunned why anyone wastes time trying to have a discussion with him. I sooner carry on a discussion about 17th century Elizabethan poetry with a potted fern.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.