Ted Hoffman

Reasonabledoubt
I obviously have a lot to learn from you about what being rude means.
Your knowledge of social etiquette and decorous behaviour is astounding.

PeterKirby
I agree with you, but I wonder if you could help:
"We" appears in Acts 94 times. What I have always wondered is which "we" of the 94 "we"s the proponents are referring to. Could you be having a clue what they are referring to?

HRG
Thanks for your contribution. Very insightful.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

TheDiddleyMan

As I understand it, the "We" parts take place when they are sailing and are caught in storms. It was common, so I understand, for a writer to write "we" - even though it was only him - during recounts of storms and such. Kind of like Kings and Queens use "we". (that was a very akward explanation BTW...peterkirby could probably do better...)

CX

I only said the Luke was not a disciple and not a witness to the events depicted in the gospels. If I gave a different impression than that I apologize.

CX

What was the question?

Vorkosigan

Amazon is offering a deal on that and Curse of Chalion (which was wonderful) in book form. Buy'em both and save a bundle.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Acts 16:10-16
Acts 20:6 - 21:17
Acts 27:1 - 28:16

There is indeed a theory that the first person plural was a literary device in sea-faring narratives.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

CX wrote: As far as I know no scholar makes this assertion. The value of GThom is that it provides evidence of a sayings genre early in the Xian tradition. I think most conclude that GThom is either independent of the gospel tradition or borrows from it adding some sayings with a decidedly gnostic bent. Do you have any references for the claim that the gospels are in any way dependent on GThom?

Please note well that I do not myself believe that the canonical Gospels are dependent on Thomas.

Stevan Davies has published on the subject of Mark's use of Thomas:

<a href="http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/tomark1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/tomark1.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/tomark2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/tomark2.htm</a>

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

Interesting. I'll have to dig through that material when I have a chance. Thanks for the links. Incidentally, what is your opinion of Professor Davies' arguments?

Ted Hoffman

CX
You said two things:
1. Luke was not an eyewitness.
2. Luke was not a disciple.
And these were your words
Now those are complete affirmations. There is no false "impression" you could have created: you were very clear.

You later asked:
You had earlier argued:
Then I responded:
I would appreciate it if you could refute my counter-argument - or make an attempt. Thats all.

PeterKirby and the diddleyman, thanks for ur contributions

Vorkosigan

Your argument relies on us accepting three things:
1. Peter had more than one "protege" called Mark.
2. The Mark that didnt know much about Jewish culture and did not recognise Peter is the one who wrote the Gospel.
3. The Markian Gospel was written by an unknown person who used the name Mark.

If (1) were true, it would have been pointed out in the "books"; both biblical and extrabiblical (like in the bible, the Simons are differentiated). You have to explain why Even Eusebius did not do that.
(2) would be a case of special pleading (3) You would have to explain who this person is and why his identity remained obscure..

Why would (1) require support from the various Christian writings? For example, the position that Luke relied on Q is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, nor in any Christian writing that I am aware of, but it is widely held today among scholars. The ancient Christian writings are an important source of evidence, but other forms of analysis and data are also important, and of equal weight. Mention in the writings neither confirms nor denies a particular assertion, although it may constitute prima facie evidence for it.

(2) is not a case of special pleading, but a widely held position among scholars: whoever wrote the Markan gospel was not very familiar with Palestinian geography or customs. However, there are some who argue for a Galilean origin of the Markan narrative, but it is my understanding that they are a minority. Thus, whoever wrote the Gospel of "Mark," condition (2) obviously must apply -- indeed, (2) is a condition that is necessary for fulfillment in order for someone to accept the claim that X wrote the Gospel of Mark. Whoever X was, they must be someone who didn't know much about Palestine. You have causation backward.

Meanwhile (3) is irrelevant; the name Mark could have been given to the Gospel much later by unconnected third parties.

Probably the reason CX has not responded to you is that your "argument" has causation backwards and contains two irrelevant points.

Vorkosigan