Peter Kirby

My humble suggestion is that the argument is good in that it shakes up the presupposition that Thomas would have to have depended on the synoptics, if there is a relationship, but bad in that it goes against some of the scholarship that says there was no literary relationship, such as the lack of common order noted in a computerized study on Davies's same web page. It is not entirely bad, however, because most of the arguments for literary independence of Thomas actually amount to arguments that Thomas was not dependent on the synoptics, as Thomas does not contain the redactional aims of the synoptics (so the argument goes), so most of these arguments for Thomasine independence (such as found in Patterson) actually leave open the question of synoptic dependence on Thomas. It is also good in that it challenges the value-laden presumption that Thomas is later than Mark, but bad in that it suggests an equally value-laden presumption that Mark is later than Thomas -- and Davies might agree with that, I don't know. None of this addresses the details of Davies's argument, which I do not remember at this time.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is. I was not clear on what Luke was not an eyewitness to. I apologize, though my clear mention of GLk and gospel attributions seems pretty unambiguous to me that I was not referring to Acts and anyway I thought the original argument was about the gospel stories being eyewitness accounts.

Firstly my comments hardly constitute an argument it was some simple counter-examples and speculation. That being said your point 1 is nowhere required based on what I said. Why could not Peter have had an interpreter in Rome named Mark? Point 2 is a given based on the text of GMk that we have which clearly shows that the author did not know a lot about Jewish culture and geography. How is that special pleading? It is a conclusion based on the text evidence. Lastly why do I have to say anything in regard to point 3? (Incidentally Markian isn't a word.) Somehow the name Mark got attached to the gospel how can we possibly know who this person is? The reason the identity in the case of all gospels is obscured is because they are all anonymous. This was fine early on when they were used only in the sphere of the community in which they developed, but once the early church needed to provide authority for their their texts they had to give them names. What is your point? You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. Originally I said that Xian belief did not attribute two of the gospels two eyewitnesses. That is true. You have not shown that it isn't

What counter-argument? Counter against what position? My position is that two of the gospels are not attributed to eyewitnesses. You have done nothing to counter that. I am of the opinion that we cannot concievably know who the actual authors of anonymously composed texts from the 1st century are. What point exactly are you disputing?

Ted Hoffman

Vorkosigan
I did not say (1) would require support from the various christian writings only. I basically said it would require some form of support for it to be valid (I used the word extrabiblical - remember?).
The position that Luke relied on Q is a logical conclusion based on study of the scriptures. As such it does not require support from the scriptures. False analogy.
Mention in the writings may confirm or deny a particular assertion, although it may not constitute evidence for its factuality for example the Gospels say Jesus resurrected but that assertion must be weighed against naturalistic plausibility, witness bias, falsifiability and so on so the assertion has support but other evidence may be used to refute the assertion - depending on the case in question.
You missed my point. Condition (2) relies on condition (1). (1) allows for the existence of many marks as Peters "proteges", then (2) picks the most convenient mark and lays the responsibility for writing the gospel on him. Only one Mark wrote the gospel, to ask us to make a provision for many Marks (in order to give room for one plausible Mark) is a case of special pleading.
Wild speculation. Just because you make a claim does not make it a Historical fact. What about the names Matthew, Luke, Thomas and John? Are they also names assigned by third parties? If not, why should we believe Marks' was, if yes, quote sources. Otherwise, your whole argument has collapsed to beautiful ash.

Try again Vorkosigan. Get it right this time.

I don't remember CX saying he had a spokesman. Is this a case of self-appointment or gratuitous overzealousness?

CX
Apology accepted. I was thinking more in the lines of ...I withdraw that statement...but no probs.

I did not deny the possibility of Peter having an interpreter in Rome named Mark. I quostioned the possibility of Peter having many interpreters named Mark. Strawman on your part.
I have explained how point 2 is a case of special pleading above, if still unsatisfied, please let me know.
You dont have to say anything in regard to point 3 if you have nothing to say.
How can someone who quoted Papias ask this question?
Scholarly consensus huh?
Quite simple: your argument about "another Mark" was weak. Thats all.
I have refuted this point. Josh McDowell and Ernest Kevan - remember?. Those are/ were eminent christians. You have not provided sources for what you now call "Xstian belief" and earlier called "christian tradition". Just baseless claims. You need to know that what CX believes does not translate to Xstian belief, but CX belief.
Fallacy of missing arguments? Attributed by who? (you earlier said attributed by christians)Which two Gospels? I have refuted Luke. Which other one do you have in mind?
And specify whether we are talking about scholars, or christians or christian tradition, or CX.
Equivocating is not the way out. Be clear.

Ted Hoffman

Vorkosigan
I did not say (1) would require support from the various christian writings only. I basically said it would require some form of support for it to be valid (I used the word extrabiblical - remember?).
The position that Luke relied on Q is a logical conclusion based on study of the scriptures. As such it does not require support from the scriptures. False analogy.
Mention in the writings may confirm or deny a particular assertion, although it may not constitute evidence for its factuality for example the Gospels say Jesus resurrected but that assertion must be weighed against naturalistic plausibility, witness bias, falsifiability and so on so the assertion has support but other evidence may be used to refute the assertion - depending on the case in question.
You missed my point. Condition (2) relies on condition (1). (1) allows for the existence of many marks as Peters "proteges", then (2) picks the most convenient mark and lays the responsibility for writing the gospel on him. Only one Mark wrote the gospel, to ask us to make a provision for many Marks (in order to give room for one plausible Mark) is a case of special pleading.
Wild speculation. Just because you make a claim does not make it a Historical fact. What about the names Matthew, Luke, Thomas and John? Are they also names assigned by third parties? If not, why should we believe Marks' was, if yes, quote sources. Otherwise, your whole argument has collapsed to beautiful ash.

Try again Vorkosigan. Get it right this time.

I don't remember CX saying he had a spokesman. Is this a case of self-appointment or gratuitous overzealousness?

CX
Apology accepted. I was thinking more in the lines of ...I withdraw that statement...but no probs.

I did not deny the possibility of Peter having an interpreter in Rome named Mark. I quostioned the possibility of Peter having many interpreters named Mark. Strawman on your part.
I have explained how point 2 is a case of special pleading above, if still unsatisfied, please let me know.
You dont have to say anything in regard to point 3 if you have nothing to say.
How can someone who quoted Papias ask this question?
Scholarly consensus huh?
Quite simple: your argument about "another Mark" was weak. Thats all.
I have refuted this point. Josh McDowell and Ernest Kevan - remember?. Those are/ were eminent christians. You have not provided sources for what you now call "Xstian belief" and earlier called "christian tradition". Just baseless claims. You need to know that what CX believes does not translate to Xstian belief, but CX belief.
Fallacy of missing arguments? Attributed by who? (you earlier said attributed by christians)Which two Gospels? I have refuted Luke. Which other one do you have in mind?
And specify whether we are talking about scholars, or christians or christian tradition, or CX.
Equivocating is not the way out. Be clear.

Vorkosigan

Wild speculation. Just because you make a claim does not make it a Historical fact. What about the names Matthew, Luke, Thomas and John? Are they also names assigned by third parties? If not, why should we believe Marks' was, if yes, quote sources. Otherwise, your whole argument has collapsed to beautiful ash.

Your point (3) stated "The Markian Gospel was written by an unknown person who used the name Mark."

There are four logical possibilities. Either someone named Mark wrote it and the name was preserved, or someone used Mark's name in writing it, or Mark's name was assigned to the gospel by later authorities, or a Mark wrote the gospel, the name was lost, and "Mark" assigned to the gospel by coincidence. The last is only for logic's sake, the first three are the realistic possibilities. There is no way to know who wrote the gospel, so your "Get it right" comment is way out of line.

I don't remember CX saying he had a spokesman. Is this a case of self-appointment or gratuitous overzealousness?

I don't remember saying I was CX's spokesman. Is this a case of functional illiteracy or lunatic belligerence?

Vorkosigan

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

CX

I never said anything about "another Mark" implying more than one Mark. I was describing the question of which possible Mark. As Vorkosigan pointed out there are several logical possibilities. Not all of them need be actual Marks.

You have done no such thing. You have demonstrated that some Xians believe Luke was a witness to the Pauline ministry according to Acts. You have done nothing to refute the statement I made that Luke is not considered an eyewitness to the Gospel events and is not consider one of the 12 disciples.[/quote]

Xians believe that Luke was Paul's "beloved physician" and a companion of Paul. The preface to GLk makes clear that ALk is working from other sources.

Attributed by the Xian church, who else? Read the preface to GMk and GLk in any version and it should tell you who tradition says the authors were. GMk has been variously attributed to "an interpreter of Peter" the missionary John Mark mentioned by Paul and Peter's "son" (whether spiritual or biological is disputed) Mark. No Xian tradition attributes GMk to a disciple. There is no Mark listed as a disciple in the gospels. Likewise GLk is attributed to Luke Paul's "beloved physician" first around 180 C.E. by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons. Xian tradition holds that this is the Luke that wrote the gospel and it thus does not establish him as an eyewitness to gospel events. He is believed to have been a travelling companion of Paul after Jesus' death and is not mentioned in any gospel.

Who establishes the authorial attributions of the gospels? The church through the church fathers, apologists and Xians in positions of authority. If some individual Xian in the pew doesn't know who his religion says wrote the texts he reads that is beside the point.

Iasion

Greetings all,

The subject of early Christian beliefs about Gospel authors being eye-witnesses came up - I thought I'd list the various early accounts for reference :

Papias from Eusebius :
Irenaeus :
Clement from Eusebius :
Tertullian :

In short - early Christians did not claim the Gospels were eye-witness accounts - especially Mark (although we can see that early Christians did not all agree that Mark was first).

Quentin David Jones

Vorkosigan

Quentin! Do you still have that list of mythicist scholars lying around somewhere?

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Vorkosigan
See, you have not been following: It was not my point. Read again.
I was rehashing CX's argument which was:
Are we clear now?
I agree with this asessment.
You said point (3) is irrelevant. You also said I got the causation backward. I believe you said so because you were not grasping the argument I was formulating. If I was wrong, you need to demonstrate how point (3) was irrelevant and how I was getting the causation backward. I have no qualms about apologising when I am wrong so prove it and I will apologise. Then we move on.
And oh, the thing about special pleading, you need to adress that too. My Occams razor is unsheathed.
Its a case of calling a spade a spade.
If you arrogate youself the task of speaking for someone else, you are acting as that persons spokesman.
From Dictionary.com:
Spokesman: One who speaks for another
CX
More than one mark means Another Mark (other than the putative one). Semantic gymnastics are not helpful here.
Vorkosigan was speculating within the realm of logical possibilities. We are more concerned with what is probable, NOT what is possible.
Vorkosigan has not provided us with any historical info that can make it Practical to believe it could have been another Mark. Sure, there were many Marks, but this is a priori assumption. Which Historian says there were Many Marks roaming around at that time? Its wild speculation. We have the Papias quotation made by Eusebius and we can do textual analysis to determine whether or not it could have been that Mark. Sure, its also said there were many people called Jesus is Nazareth, does that mean Jesus could have been any other other than the putative Jesus?
Fallacy of missing arguments. Considered by who? This is what you said:
You could provide no source of this so-called christian tradition.
I said the average christian believes Luke is an eyewitness, you said I was wrong. I provided sources proving that some christian scholars believe that Luke is indeed an eyewitness. What I refuted was your assertion that Christian Tradition (whatever that means) says that Luke is Not an eyewitness.
Which christians? you? Please quote sources, otherwise your claim is baseless.
I was talking about average christians. If you have chosen to reframe your argument to a less ambiguous term like "Xian Church" from "Xsian tradition", I have no choice but to release my tenacious grip on your neck. You can now breathe.
But still, what do you mean by Xian church? Do you mean that Josh McDowell is not part of the Xian church? and Ernest Kevan?

Would you consider reframing the phrase to "some members of the Xian church"?
believed by some christians right? Like you for instance, and other christians dont agree, like Josh McDowell for instance.
Josh McDowell is an apologist. He has spoken in many universities and written many books.
Ernest Kevan was a christian in a position of authority (principle of the London Bible College until his death in 1965) and he wrote many books.
A true christian Scholar.
Provide evidence for the "fathers". Quit making baseless claims. You mentioned 180 C.E. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons saying Luke was not an eyewitness, provide sources or quotes.

IaisonThanks for the quotes. Oh and you forgot the sources. Maybe they are from dubious sources? Eliminate this outrageous thought by providing titles, pages etc.
Please.

CX

I'm not a Xian.


Why on earth should I do your homework for you? It is clear you know next to nothing about the authorial attributions of the gospels. Even so I provide the following for your edification.

Not only that pick up any modern English translation and look at the introduction to GLk. They invariably attribute the Gospel to Luke the gentile Physician and companion of Paul mentioned in the previously quoted epistles.

Furthermore your citation of Josh McDowell is irrelevant. His argument (which is the same as tradition) is only that Luke was an eyewitness to parts of Acts because he was a traveling companion of Paul. McDowell does not deviate from the traditional attribution vis-a-vis GLk.

P.S. Carefully reread the citation of McDowell you provided. He states clearly the traditional position in noting the intro to GLk and that Luke "gathered information from eye-witnesses". Obviously therefore McDowell does not think Luke an eyewitness to Gospel events. Taht was the original question. Pointing out that tradition holds that Luke was a witness to events in Paul's ministry is obfuscation pure and simple.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>