|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 19:34:45 [Permalink]
|
What confounds me is that an alleged "empty tomb," even if it existed, would only be a vacant hole; non-evidence.
By contrast, a confirmed tomb with Jesus' identifiable body in it would prove his mortality. But nothing else about such a tomb even potentially proves anything.
You Christians seem to me to be strange indeed for harping on your weak evidence for an "empty tomb," because it would prove nothing even if there were evidence for it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/15/2008 20:30:43 |
 |
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 22:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Before I reply I'm happy that people here are not hurling insults as it has been my experience in the past with others. That's always the first step to arriving at a solution, especially one as fundamentally important as this one  .
| Who wrote the four gospels and when? As previously pointed out to you we really don't know who and the earliest date for Mark is 30 plus years after the story being told. This is likely not an eye witness account. So perhaps you would like to explain why "there is no question of authenticity/authorship". |
This was regarding the earlier posts that were talking about there being contradictions in the Gospels' accounts of the Resurrection. However, the question is by no means less important, in fact moreso: who wrote the Gospels, when, and are they reliable. No, don't worry, I'm not going to cite that there are 5000+ NT Greek manuscripts supposedly proving them because in that case every book that has had thousands of copies printed in the world would have to be true.
I'll give a brief outline only of the Synoptic Gospels because including John will probably have to double everything and probably even triple with authorship.
Firstly with Mark. Early tradition has the Gospel rooted in 65/67 and there is little reason to try and put it anytime earlier. I've seen it noted (I think it was a non-conservative) that Mark's contents could only have come from Peter, an eyewitness, but the developed church tradition in it is identifiable. My university's library showed it had the book on the computer catalog, the book out of which the footnote of another book was referring to, Nineham's St Mark, but the book wasn't there. These are the two quotes:
| the fact that much of the information in the Gospel is of a kind that seems unlikely to have come from anyone but Peter |
and
| St Mark's material bears all the signs of having been community tradition and cannot therefore be derived directly from St Peter or any other eyewitness |
Italics are Nineham's.
Without the book, these statements are not very useful here, but it is nevertheless true that Mark bears characteristics that can hardly put him before 60 AD, if not 65. If one makes a detailed comparison with Matthew, Mark, and Luke (I compared the first few pericopes) it should become apparently clear that Luke has the most primitive material, then Matthew, and finally Mark. Matthew has a lot more similarities with Mark than Luke with Mark (not percentage-wise, but in the same pericopes), in fact those between the three are very few (ad verbatim). When then was Luke written? The earliest date for the Gospel is not earlier than 55 because Acts ends not earlier than 62, and Acts was not written much longer after Luke.
The objection that Matthew copied Mark and therefore could not be an eyewitness is somewhat misguided. Firstly, as I mentioned above, it is very likely that Luke had an earlier edition of Mark than the form we have today, and Matthew had a later one, but still an earlier one than Mark today, as Mark has more than Matthew in the pericopes he did not epitomize such as "John the Baptist preparing the Way." What has been called "Q" is attested to by Papias (in c.130 AD) as the oracles being written by the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic. Is Papias reliable? He certainly wasn't lying, but could have been recording hearsay, however why he would put Matthew as the author of the sayings of the Lord speaks of a kernel of truth, as well as Mark as the author of the narrative. Thus with ur-Mark (1 and 2) and Q we have the building blocks for Matthew and Mark, with ur-Mark3 being Mark (how many ur-Marks there were is anybody's guess).
But are 20-30 years reliable? Joseph McCabe, who has 2 attacks on Christianity in every 3 sentences talks about the beginnings of the bahai/babism and references Phelps' "The life and teachings of abbas effendi," with a comment that after the death of Ali Muhammad (the founder of babism, which later shifted to bahai) within a few years there was an account of him which was purely human, but then some 20 years later there was one with miracles. Where he read that in Phelps' book I don't know, which as the title denotes talks about the son of a contemporary of Ali Muhammad (Shirazi), but even so, the two situations are not congruent at all. Firstly, by the mid-19th century the genre of Gospel had already existed for almost 1800 years! Mark (who is deemed to be earliest) scholars say invented the genre of Gospel, and there is no parallel prior to the canonical Gospels that has a historical person who performs miracles. All such come later (Philostratus' "The life of apollonius," is from the 4th century even if it says to be based on the notes of a fellow traveler, which were still written in 97). By 20 years the persecutions had stopped against the babism/bahai followers. Furthermore, the period of apostolic oversight for the churches in the East is about 30-62 (death of James), when there were enough apostles left alive who would be quick to rebuke various heresies (e.g. Paul with the Galatians). An embellishment like that can hardly be conformed with the character of the apostles who would not lie as at least one of the undisputed epistles of Paul clearly reveal.
Often times the claim is passed around that Paul was not an eyewitness, and the others we don't know why they died and I've seen that Peter was charged on legal grounds, and not on religious, hence any recanting testimony would have been to no avail. Well, if that had any weight in the historical world, one can never know about anything unless he or she had actually been there! But even if Paul was not an eyewitness he had ACCESS to eyewitnesses! Does one suppose that someone with such a powerful support would risk his life about something About which there would be serious doubt if the Apostles never preached the Resurrection and miracles of Christ? If so, these verses from Galatians are very hard to explain:
Galatians 2.2 (NIV): "I went [to the council of Jerusalem in c.48 AD] in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain."
If Paul was so cautious about the doctrine of circumcision and freedom from the Law, how can someone suppose that he would be so confident about the Resurrection (and miracles) of Christ, about which the apostles (most of whom if not all would have been alive) would have to be witnesses and would exhibit nothing of the sort?! The only possible explanation one can give is that they were so confident because of a convincing deceit, yet this must be extended not just to them but 500 people (1 Corinthians 15)! It can hardly be that these eyewitnesses were in some incubation ritual, as such would have been despicable to Jews, but if Paul uses these witnesses to support the Resurrection's historicity (despite of what one believes it to be, although only a physical Resurrection could have been had in mind by a Judean), the fact that he uses these 500 in addition to the Twelve, with whom he was familiar with (at least Peter and perhaps James, but Peter is the source for Mark isn't he), shows that Paul is not only NOT disinterested in tangible proof, but in fact probably looked for it or would have if the occasion presented itself (but how much would he have wanted to know, given his miraculous conversion?).
| The inclusion might also have been an effort by the author at the fullfillment of prophecy. Or as I see it a sincere effort to predict the past. And since.. |
The myths about other people allegedly having been Resurrected are everything but accurate. If it's not an ancient myth about the returning seasons being compared with the Resurrection of Christ, it's some post-Christian myth most likely constructed to imitate Christianity rather than vice versa. If the inclusion is to mean the foreshadowing of the destruction of the Temple, the way this is described I've read is an ancient traditional view of the destructions of a city, and nothing specific like the burning of the Temple as in post-70 AD "prophecies" (2 Baruch, one of the books of the Sybilline oracles) is found anywhere in the New Testament (Gospels or anything else).
Originally posted by HalfMooner
What confounds me is that an alleged "empty tomb," even if it existed, would only be a vacant hole; non-evidence.
By contrast, a confirmed tomb with Jesus' identifiable body in it would prove his mortality. But nothing else about such a tomb even potentially proves anything.
You Christians seem to me to be strange indeed for harping on your weak evidence for an "empty tomb," because it would prove nothing even if there were evidence for it.
|
And the Gospel of Matthew agrees with you there because according to it the rumor that Jesus' body was stolen spread. But why anyone would steal a body and boldly proclaim that Christ had Risen is a mystery to me. The allegation by Richard Carrier that the ancients didn't really care about evidence and thus gave up their lives willingly for a cause that to their knowledge may or may not have been true is entirely misguided. He uses Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin, and the fact that the Resurrection is not mentioned, but such introductory speeches are likely to have been customary in the ancient world (perhaps 1 Clement, which does not get to the main point of addressing the Corinthian Church's main problem until chapter 44, albeit each chapter is I think a few verses only). Stephen in Acts 6 is recorded as having performed miracles, so one cannot use that to say the ancients didn't need any proof. True, countless false prophets were followed by Josephus, but mostly because they PHYsically rebelled against Rome; this can't really be compared with SomeOne Who is the opposite, and died a shameful death. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2008 : 04:42:55 [Permalink]
|
| But why anyone would steal a body and boldly proclaim that Christ had Risen is a mystery to me. |
You're serious? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 04/24/2008 : 17:19:26 [Permalink]
|
First and foremost, "All this and not a single link/reference?"
Originally posted by smoke
No, don't worry, I'm not going to cite that there are 5000+ NT Greek manuscripts supposedly proving them because in that case every book that has had thousands of copies printed in the world would have to be true.
|
Then why bring it up? Because having a lot of copies of little books just means that these little books were copied a lot.
Originally posted by smoke
I'll give a brief outline only of the Synoptic Gospels because including John will probably have to double everything and probably even triple with authorship.
Firstly with Mark. Early tradition has the Gospel rooted in 65/67 and there is little reason to try and put it anytime earlier. I've seen it noted (I think it was a non-conservative) that Mark's contents could only have come from Peter, an eyewitness, but the developed church tradition in it is identifiable. ...
|
So you have Mark a desciple of Peter being attribute authorship of the Gospel of Mark by Papias in the early second century.
Mark was said to have been a disciple of Peter's who did not personally witness any of these events he described, but recalled and wrote down what Peter had told him.
|
We have Mark as not an eyewitness, but simply recording what he was told by Peter. Second hand information. As far as Peter being an eyewitness, empty tomb/resurrection appearance, we only know of this through the contents of the bible. So you are using the contents of the bible to evidence the contents of the bible. Why should I accept this as anything other than a testimony of your faith?
Originally posted by smoke
The objection that Matthew copied Mark and therefore could not be an eyewitness is somewhat misguided. ...
|
There is ome debate on primacy of Mark, but it seems that many more scholars favor the Two source hypothesis over other solution to the synoptic problem. But how do you establish that the authors of Luke and Matthew were eyewitnesses.
Originally posted by smoke
But even if Paul was not an eyewitness he had ACCESS to eyewitnesses! Does one suppose that someone with such a powerful support would risk his life about something About which there would be serious doubt if the Apostles never preached the Resurrection and miracles of Christ?
|
Risking ones life for a belief? You're kidding. Right? Can you think of any present day examples of individuals willingly risking, sacrificing, theirs lives for a belief?
Originally posted by smoke
The myths about other people allegedly having been Resurrected are everything but accurate.
|
These myths simply establish that risen savior gods did not originate with the resurrection of Jesus myth.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2008 : 18:38:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
However, the question is by no means less important, in fact moreso: who wrote the Gospels, when, and are they reliable.
[snip]
Firstly with Mark. Early tradition has the Gospel rooted in 65/67 and there is little reason to try and put it anytime earlier. I've seen it noted (I think it was a non-conservative) that Mark's contents could only have come from Peter, an eyewitness, but the developed church tradition in it is identifiable. |
I think the association of Mark and Peter is an early one, but not one that someone should put much literal faith in. In Koester's Introduction to the New Testament, he writes:| The external attestation for the relationship of Mark to Peter appears in the writings of the Phyrigian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 100-150). He writes that his informant, whom he calls a 'presbyter,' had told him that Mark had been the interpreter of Peter and that he had recorded the words and deeds of the Lord accurately, but not in the (correct) sequence, as far as he could remember them. Papias adds the remark that Mark could not be blamed for proceeding in this way, since he had never heard the Lord himself, nor did he follow him; he was dependent upon Peter's lectures |
Koester notes, then that "we should not overestimate the value of this tradition," though he adds that the relationship "should not be completely overlooked," either.
| If one makes a detailed comparison with Matthew, Mark, and Luke (I compared the first few pericopes) it should become apparently clear that Luke has the most primitive material, then Matthew, and finally Mark. Matthew has a lot more similarities with Mark than Luke with Mark (not percentage-wise, but in the same pericopes), in fact those between the three are very few (ad verbatim). When then was Luke written? The earliest date for the Gospel is not earlier than 55 because Acts ends not earlier than 62, and Acts was not written much longer after Luke. |
If I understand you correctly, you are placing Luke as early as 55, but I don't know anyone who puts Luke before Mark. Indeed, it is generally agreed that Luke (and Matthew) are dependent on Mark, and its date is probably somewhere ca. 90.
| The objection that Matthew copied Mark and therefore could not be an eyewitness is somewhat misguided. Firstly, as I mentioned above, it is very likely that Luke had an earlier edition of Mark than the form we have today, and Matthew had a later one, but still an earlier one than Mark today |
Again, this goes against general scholarly convention. Perhaps if you showed us what you meant, it would make a stronger case.
There's a lot to digest in the rest of your post and i had a hard time discerning what the thrust of some of your points were. Moreover, I'm trying hard to refresh myself on early Christianity, since I last dealt with it in a more serious level some time ago.
But you're right that starting with the Synoptics is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 15:20:41 [Permalink]
|
| I am surprised that no one has brought-up the inspiration for the gospels that can be found in the Zoroastrian religion or the myth of Dionysos and the Greek play I forgot the name of that is ripped of word for word... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 19:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I am surprised that no one has brought-up the inspiration for the gospels that can be found in the Zoroastrian religion or the myth of Dionysos and the Greek play I forgot the name of that is ripped of word for word... |
Hi Simon and welcome to SFN. It's true that certain elements of the Zoroastrian religion have been linked to early Christian mythology. I'm sure that will come up at some point, though I don't think it's so damning. Feel free to elaborate, though. I'm also curious about the Greek play you mention! |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 20:42:47 [Permalink]
|
Thank you; thank you. *Bow to Cuneiformist*
The Greek play I mention has a scene has, almost line by line, been ripped of in the Conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus.
My point is that the Gospels show several signs of 'contamination' by external sources. This is not certainly not a problem (unless you happen to be a believer in the literal truth of the Bible).
However: a-It shows that not all the elements of the New Testament were as original as sometime advanced.
b-That the oral traditions had time to incorporate external elements might suggest a later rather than earlier time of writing.
c-This also suggests that the chain of this oral tradition was tenuous at times and that apocryphe elements managed to creep in.
d-These last points seem inconsistent with the tradition of the gospels being written by the original disciple.
e-More than than that; some of these incorporation seems to have been made knowledgeably (the Greek play); which suggest a concious effort of writing rather than just a transcription of oral tradition with a possibility of a 'writer bias' especially considering that these writers were from a very different background than Jesus was.
From a personal point of view; it means to me that the origin of the gospels is more complex and much more interesting that the version I was taught in Sunday's school... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 08:18:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Thank you; thank you. *Bow to Cuneiformist*
The Greek play I mention has a scene has, almost line by line, been ripped of in the Conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus. |
But which play? I just looked at the Wiki entry for Paul and didn't find anything. The Wiki is hardly comprehensive (and isn't even always correct, of course), so perhaps you could fill me in??
My point is that the Gospels show several signs of 'contamination' by external sources. This is not certainly not a problem (unless you happen to be a believer in the literal truth of the Bible).
However: a-It shows that not all the elements of the New Testament were as original as sometime advanced.
b-That the oral traditions had time to incorporate external elements might suggest a later rather than earlier time of writing.
c-This also suggests that the chain of this oral tradition was tenuous at times and that apocryphe elements managed to creep in.
d-These last points seem inconsistent with the tradition of the gospels being written by the original disciple.
e-More than than that; some of these incorporation seems to have been made knowledgeably (the Greek play); which suggest a concious effort of writing rather than just a transcription of oral tradition with a possibility of a 'writer bias' especially considering that these writers were from a very different background than Jesus was.
From a personal point of view; it means to me that the origin of the gospels is more complex and much more interesting that the version I was taught in Sunday's school...
|
Well, that's true-- the Sunday School white-wash doesn't jibe with the far more complex (and interesting) reality of the NT! I might disagree with point b only in that we have some pretty solid dates (well, +/- a few years) for each of the Gospels. Point d is certainly correct-- indeed, I think you can be more forceful in that point!! |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 10:02:58 [Permalink]
|
Ok... I looked over the internet and, apparently my memory deceived me.
I was referring the the 'Bacchae' and there are a lot of similarities and even the sentence "to kick against the pricks." but apparently not as much as I might have remembered.
So mea culpa for this.
However all was not lost and I found this site: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm that promise to be interesting when I will have time to look at it more closely.
My opinion about Saint Paul is that went the tension rose between him and the old guard he decided to write his point of view. And, because he did not find his real story interesting enough, decided to lift the plot from one of his preferred conversion story (that would probably not be known from his adversaries them being from a comparatively backward background)... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 12:46:29 [Permalink]
|
| I was thinking this thread title would be a good name for an evolution book, with some new punctuation... Jesus! The evidence! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 19:22:24 [Permalink]
|
I don't get it...
But; I guess this would be a quick way to fortune. Writing books scientifically proving the existence of Jesus. Enough so-called 'Christians' would buy it to assure your fortune. Then you can always spend the rest of your life easily debunking it...
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 20:32:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I don't get it...
But; I guess this would be a quick way to fortune. Writing books scientifically proving the existence of Jesus. Enough so-called 'Christians' would buy it to assure your fortune. Then you can always spend the rest of your life easily debunking it... |
I think BPS was making a play out of how "Jesus" can also be an exclamatory phrase-- think, "Jesus! Look at the size of that thing!" One could easily imagine the following exchange:
Person one: Did you bring the evidence?
Person two: Jesus! The evidence! I totally forgot!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 21:06:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I think BPS was making a play out of how "Jesus" can also be an exclamatory phrase-- think, "Jesus! Look at the size of that thing!" One could easily imagine the following exchange:
Person one: Did you bring the evidence?
Person two: Jesus! The evidence! I totally forgot! |
Except in the scenario BPS laid out, it's "Jesus! The Evidence! There's a huge amount of it!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus the Evidence
