Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Eyewitnesses would have objected if the Gospels were untrue"
5 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:42PM #31
Blü
Posts: 26,191

jonny


I don't assert that they had good information.  I assert that it is likely that they had good reason  to name the gospels as they did. 


They may have had a good reason in the sense that the reason accounts for the name, correct or not, that they gave it.


But the only good reason for naming it correctly is having good information.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:47PM #32
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Marcus and Lucas-good Latin names


what would be the motivation for a church that still hates Rome to attribute authorship to foreign named individuals?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:50PM #33
jonny42
Posts: 6,889

May 5, 2012 -- 8:42PM, Blü wrote:


jonny


I don't assert that they had good information.  I assert that it is likely that they had good reason  to name the gospels as they did. 


They may have had a good reason in the sense that the reason accounts for the name, correct or not, that they gave it.


But the only good reason for naming it correctly is having good information.




It seems highly unlikely that they would conclude that Mark and Luke were the authors without good information.     It's hard to imagine this conversation: "We don't have good information as to who the authors are.   So who should we say are the authors?  Peter, James, John?  No.  Let's go with some non-eyewitnesses.  Let's go with Mark and Luke."


(Also, Mark has a shaky resume.  Luke is not an influential follower like Barnabas or Apollos.  Why not give authorship to them?)    They likely knew that Mark and Luke were the authors, based on good information.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:46PM #34
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

How many eyewitnesses actually read the gospels?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 4:29PM #35
costrel
Posts: 6,227

May 5, 2012 -- 8:47PM, davelaw40 wrote:

Marcus and Lucas-good Latin names


what would be the motivation for a church that still hates Rome to attribute authorship to foreign named individuals?


According to the online resource The Development of the New Testament Canon (click HERE), with the exception of one small phrase from Mark's Gospel and one sentence from Luke's Gospel in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and one small sentence from Luke's Gospel in Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaens 3:1-2, the first Early Church authors to reference Luke's Gospel were (the heretics) Marcion and Valentinus. Marcion was apparently not aware of Mark's Gospel, while Valentinus apparently was familiar with all four canonical Gospels. After Valentinus, Justin Martyr is the next Early Church author who was familar with all four canonical Gospels (and hence the Gospels of Mark and Luke). By the time of Irenaeus (who wrote circa 175-185), the four canonical Gospels are cited by every major Early Church author whose work is preserved down to Athanasius and Didymus the Blind. (Didymus died in 398.) 


In the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp (who wrote circa 105-117 and circa 120-140, respectively), quotes apparently from the Gospels merely appear, and if they are attributed, they are attributed to Jesus. For instance, here is how Ignatius incorporates his quote from Luke's Gospel into his Letter to the Smyrnaens: "For myself, I am convinced and believe that even after the resurrection he was in the flesh. Indeed, when he came to Peter and his friends, he said to them, 'Take hold of me, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.' And they at once touched him and were convinced, clutching his body and his very breath. For this reason they despised death itself, and proved its victors. Moreover, after the resurrection he ate and drank with them as a real human being, although in spirit he was united with the Father." Ignasius just incorporates the quote in the form of dialogue as part of his story-telling technique. Polycarp, likewise, refers to passages in the Gospels in similar fashion. For instance, he writes, "but remembering the words which the Lord spoke, as He taught, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged [...]'(2:3). Both Ignatius and Polycarp also incorporate quotes from the Gospels into their writings without tags that identify Jesus as their originator (for instance, in Letter 5:2 Polycarp writes, "and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him, if indeed we have faith"). 


Justin Martyr, on the other hand, usually refers to the "Memoirs of his [Jesus's] apostles" in his First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, and then either quotes or summarizes passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from these so-called "Memoirs." He does not refer to these "Memoirs" independently by name, but refers to them collectively and cites from them without distinction. For instance, in Dialogue 105 Justin writes, "For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs." Yet Justin also uses the older style of Ignatius and Polycarp of attributing passages directly to Jesus himself, as he does in First Apology 61.4: "For Christ also said, 'Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"


I am not sure about the references to the Gospels in Marcionite and Valentinian writings, but Irenaeus is careful to refer to each of the Gospels by name when he quotes from them, viz.: "Matthew proclaims," "But Mark takes his beginning," "That according to Luke," and "For that according to John." I don't know why the Gospels might have been attibuted to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but it appears from the textual evidence that down to the time of Justin Martyr (100-165) the attributions of these Gospels to specific disciples (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were either unknown or were considered unimportant. Likewise, sometime between Justin Martyr (100-165) and Irenaeus (120-203), it became fashionable to quote from the Gospels independently using the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than referring to their contents as either originating from Jesus himself or collectively from the "Memoirs of the Apostles." -- Or, perhaps, Irenaeus was the one who popularized this careful distinction between the four Gospels when quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing their contents, and perhaps he also was the one who popularized the specific names of each of the four Gospels. 


On the other hand, Papias (circa 97-110 to circa 117-140), who knew Polycarp and if the later dating is accepted, would have been a contemporary of Justin Martyr, seems to have favored oral tradition, as he writes in Fragment I: "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, -- what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 4:52PM #36
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

Is it good form to have three hands?

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:31PM #37
Ed_3
Posts: 500

May 4, 2012 -- 8:00PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


3. ..."historical style"...fact wasn't important ...Horse pucky!
The Jewish nation were master historians, both in verbal traditions and ancient writings...extreme attention to detail in dictation, writing, and copying!
...verbal Aramaic translated into written Koine Greek.... All authors of the NT were learned and became "carried along by" God the Holy Spirit.



Rgurley4, I'm curious. Do you mind explaining this discrepancy to me?


In all four gospels, Jesus provocatively rides into Jerusalem on a young donkey in fulfilment the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” By this symbolic act Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. From here on in, events accelerate towards Jesus’ trial and execution.


In three of the four accounts of the triumphal entry, Jesus rides a single donkey. Matthew, though, apparently misunderstands the prophecy and, rather absurdly, has Jesus ride two donkeys.


[. . .]


The prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, recall, said that the king would come ”riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey”. The repetition here is typical of Hebrew poesy, with the donkey being described twice in different words. Matthew, though, appears not to have understood this. Matthew seems to have thought that the prophecy described the king riding both a donkey and a colt and so introduced a second donkey into the triumphal entry:



When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, “The Lord needs them.” And he will send them immediately.’ This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, ‘Tell the daughter of Zion, Look your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their clothes on them, and he sat on them. [Matthew 21:1-7 (NRSV)]



www.errancy.com/on-how-many-donkeys-did-...




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:39PM #38
Athlyes
Posts: 9

Pseudographic gospels and letters in the New Testament is a complex issue. We know there are psedographc extra canoncial writings such as the Gospel of Peter and the Letter to the Laodicians, and insertions are also debated such as John 21 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Pseudographic literature was seen differently in the ancient world; writing in someones name and using their stylistic emphasis was not unusual. Is it totally reasonable to state that there could have been no pseudographic literature accepted into the New Testament?


For example in Pauls letters, 1 Timothy 1.8-11 states that the law holds no terror for men, which is in contrast to the law as the power which enslaves all men mentioned elsewhere such as Romans 7, or there is the absence of any eschatological perspective in Ephesians, which is in contrast with the end coming soon elsewhere in Pauls writings.


Of course authors are allowed to change their minds with time and events, and it is up for debate how inconsistant a writer should be allowed to be before we need to start to think there were two writers.


Its an interesting issue, as for example scholars have come to diametrically opposed viewpoints as to Paul being the author of Colossians from the same evidence.




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:15PM #39
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Regarding the donkey story, it is not fair to blame poor Matthew.  He just copied faithfully and without error the Zechariah story as written in the Septuagint.  HOWEVER, if the evangelists were copying the Zechariah story, they were not decribing real events.  So we are reading a fictional description not a historical event.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:15PM #40
Ed_3
Posts: 500

May 6, 2012 -- 8:15PM, JimRigas wrote:


Regarding the donkey story, it is not fair to blame poor Matthew.  He just copied faithfully and without error the Zechariah story as written in the Septuagint



So does that mean that Matthew was unaware that the other translations of Zechariah were describing the donkey twice in different words?


May 6, 2012 -- 8:15PM, JimRigas wrote:


HOWEVER, if the evangelists were copying the Zechariah story, they were not decribing real events.  So we are reading a fictional description not a historical event.



Could you elaborate on that a little more?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook