We Have Two Swords

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Luke wrote both works, and as already made clear, absolutely nobody thinks Acts preceded the writing of Luke.


Irrelevant. As already made clear, absolutely nobody thinks Acts preceded the writing of Luke.

Why all the comment?

You wrote this:

The argument for the earlier date is based in part on that it was likely written just before or immediately after Paul's death. This is indicated by how Paul's fate is still up in the air and that the Temple still stood.

That suggests you were referring to Acts and not the gospel.

Perhaps you should look up what the term means. Inerrancy isn't having to point out the obvious such as with the example you cited.

That is good to read.

You will therefore have no problem in identifying which verse[s]/section[s]/account[s] contained in the NT you consider to be in error.

First, you literally declared that the sources weren't academics but when you are shown to be wrong you then want to insinuate that I'm engaging in credentialism. What the #@%$ is wrong with you?

It was a reference to a not uncommon criticism our mutual friend regularly makes to me when I refer to the views and opinions of accredited academics.

And yet immediately after sneering at credentialism here you dive head first into it.

Have you thought of changing your avatar to Humpty Dumpty? You change the meaning of words in accordance with whatever you wish them to mean at any given moment.

Where exactly was I "sneering"?

The persons mentioned are academics but since they didn't attend "[for example] Duke, Yale, Harvard, or Berkeley" so that doesn't count. TROO academics must attend a school on H_A's approved list. And God forbid that someone study theology and/or the Bible at a religious school. That automatically voids any degree obtained.

I simply remarked that apart from Lane Craig all of these individuals have obtained their qualifications from various seminaries/theological institutions and/or private universities [for the latter with the attendant concerns over academic rigour].

Furthermore, obtaining qualifications from seminaries/theological institutions does suggest a predisposition on the individual’s which I consider requires a degree of caution when reading their comments.

And you ignore the fact that they also have a very long history of being continuously copied long before Christianity became dominant and given that they were considered valuable of being preserved.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what I wrote and to which you responded. Feeling that need to show I knows stuff again?

It remains highly significant that one of the main reasons for the loss of so many ancient texts is that once Christianity gained ascendancy the interest was lost in copying many of these texts as Christians were less interested in reading them and/or the texts were condemned [for a number of reasons] by various Christian prelates.

That combined with war, accident, or deliberate destruction ensured that many texts were lost or are only referenced in other texts and/or bibliographies. The text of Celsus being a case in point. Had Origen not quoted his adversary at length we would have no idea as to what Celsus actually wrote because the Christians destroyed his works.

Centuries before Christianity gained toleration other texts also suffered similar fates and we only know of them through references in extant texts that have come down to us.

The fact is that you scoff at anything being written more than a few moments after it took place as not being able to accurate relay what took place.

Are you actually capable of engaging in dispassionate and mature exchanges? That you have yet again resorted to mendaciously distorting and adulterating what I have written and that again you feel the need to make puerile personal remarks is evidence that you still have the mentality of a ten year old shouting abusive taunts in the school yard.

I simply question your naïve acceptance that various Christian texts were written by the individuals to whom they are attributed.

with respect to the big picture it really didn't much matter

Once again with regards to the campaigns in Gaul by Caesar you show your utter ignorance. To paraphrase a line "rogue06 does write the darndest things".

A tradition stretching back to the beginning it would appear.

On what attested historical evidence?

That would suggest it is based on something more than pulling a name randomly out of some hat as you would have us suppose.

And again the fact that there is no record of any of the synoptics being referred to as being authored by anyone else. None.

That again is a strong demonstration that the tradition was based in fact or else we'd have some indication that say the Gospel by Mark was called something else at some point in some place.

Add to that that like in the case of Luke, they are assigned to someone that many are forced to ask "who?" If you are going to just make up who wrote it then you aren't going to attribute it to someone few if any know. You'd do like what we saw in the cases of the non-canonical and apocryphal works that started appearing in the late 2nd century and later -- virtually everything assigned to a "big name." That this isn't the case is yet more evidence in support of the attributions being correct.

Comments that once again indicate you know next to nothing of the history of your religion.

The simple fact is that none of the canonical gospel writers named themselves and the earliest unequivocal linking of a particular name to a particular gospel is by Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century CE. He was concerned to link these deemed authoritative texts as closely as possible to the disciples themselves. Hence his choice of authors, two supposed disciples and two supposed companions and/or secretaries to Peter and Paul. Of the MSS fragments that have come down to us none show any attribution until the early third century CE.

That you keep insisting that this is the case demonstrates your own projected ignorance.

The church was most definitely orthodox during the Apostolic Age. The Apostles had the unquestioned authority to bring those straying back into the fold. It was only after their time that you see the various heresies taking root in the middle 2nd century and third.

There was no “orthodoxy” in the first two hundred and fifty years or so of your religion’s existence. Hence the various polemical writings against various Christian sects from other Christians. However, beliefs that would be were later condemned were defended by some of these ante-Nicene ECFs for example both Tertullian and Irenaeus considered the Montanists an admirable group and Irenaeus defended their cause at Rome. In the fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis would condemn Montanism. Then there was the all too human issue of jealousy and rivalry as illustrated by the later behaviour of Bishop Demetrius towards Origen.

And of course we should not overlook the fact that many of those early ECFs held to subordinationism and that would have been deemed heretical from the fifth century.

Certainly there were some individuals and groups that held to what would later become a proto-orthodoxy but their views carried no authority beyond their own communities. The religion was entirely fluid.

I don't know of anyone who doubts that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite. The others are less obviously so. FWIU, the one attached to Luke is regarded as the earliest by many.

Could you rewrite that sentence as I have no idea what you are attempting to convey.

Although I would ask you how many academics in these disciplines are among your personal acquaintances; and, more to the point, how many academic texts on the origins and transmission of the NT have you actually read?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

All the schools mentioned are accredited so that should ease your troubled mind regarding the quality of education offered there.

To what are they accredited and by whom?

Given the situation with regard to private universities etc in the USA it is possible for such institutions to make the bar as low as they wish and still permit people to leave carrying their pieces of paper illustrating their qualifications.

I am not suggesting that the institutions attended by those individuals you cited are of that ilk but...the risk is always there.

I would not place Liberty or Bob Jones alongside Berkeley or Cornell.

[tabibito]

To what are they accredited and by whom?

Given the situation with regard to private universities etc in the USA it is possible for such institutions to make the bar as low as they wish and still permit people to leave carrying their pieces of paper illustrating their qualifications.

I am not suggesting that the institutions attended by those individuals you cited are of that ilk but...the risk is always there.

I would not place Liberty or Bob Jones alongside Berkeley or Cornell.

In this case "accredited" means that the credentials gained at the institution in question are recognised by the appropriate regulatory authorities of the nation concerned. There are occasionally some problems with international recognition. A BTh (for example) gained at any American accredited institution will be recognised by an "Ivy League" University (for example) Harvard or MIT, so "questions about academic rigour" are moot. A PhD gained at any American accredited institution will also be recognised by "Ivy League" universities. That is why accreditation exists, and it is a major factor in the cost of providing courses.

[tabibito]

Why all the comment?

You wrote this:

The argument for the earlier date is based in part on that it was likely written just before or immediately after Paul's death. This is indicated by how Paul's fate is still up in the air and that the Temple still stood.

That suggests you were referring to Acts and not the gospel.

There seems to be no disagreement with the composition date of Acts being after the composition date of the gospel according to Luke. There is reason to believe that Acts was written during Paul's lifetime, or shortly thereafter, so the gospel would have to have been written (prior to Acts and therefore) before Paul's death.

That is good to read.

You will therefore have no problem in identifying which verse[s]/section[s]/account[s] contained in the NT you consider to be in error.

No-one sensible is going to challenge the fact that Matthew's genealogy of Christ is erroneous.

It was a reference to a not uncommon criticism our mutual friend regularly makes to me when I refer to the views and opinions of accredited academics.

Accreditation is no guarantee that the workmanship will be of an acceptable standard, as any number of home-buyers will attest.

I simply remarked that apart from Lane Craig all of these individuals have obtained their qualifications from various seminaries/theological institutions and/or private universities [for the latter with the attendant concerns over academic rigour].

No reasonable concerns arise.

Furthermore, obtaining qualifications from seminaries/theological institutions does suggest a predisposition on the individual’s which I consider requires a degree of caution when reading their comments.

Ah ... accreditation isn't a strong enough criterion: you claim the right to decide whether or not the accreditation is valid. Even I don't go so far.

It remains highly significant that one of the main reasons for the loss of so many ancient texts is that once Christianity gained ascendancy the interest was lost in copying many of these texts as Christians were less interested in reading them and/or the texts were condemned [for a number of reasons] by various Christian prelates.

Enough truth there to prevent any major objections. However, it was a fairly standard Roman practice - as you note below.

That combined with war, accident, or deliberate destruction ensured that many texts were lost or are only referenced in other texts and/or bibliographies. The text of Celsus being a case in point. Had Origen not quoted his adversary at length we would have no idea as to what Celsus actually wrote because the Christians destroyed his works.

Celsus recorded the Christian teachings of his time: his might be a special case, given that those teachings fell into disrepute.

Centuries before Christianity gained toleration other texts also suffered similar fates and we only know of them through references in extant texts that have come down to us.

Yep, standard Roman practice - though I don't think Rome can be singled out: it might more properly be termed standard practice across the board. People on the wrong side of an argument got cancelled even then.

I simply question your [/COLOR][/FONT]naïve [FONT=Helvetica][COLOR=#252c2f]acceptance that various Christian texts were written by the individuals to whom they are attributed.

"Question" doesn't seem to be quite the right word, given that you don't allow any view that the attribution is valid can possibly be correct.

Comments that once again indicate you know next to nothing of the history of your religion. The simple fact is that none of the canonical gospel writers named themselves and the earliest unequivocal linking of a particular name to a particular gospel is by Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century CE. He was concerned to link these deemed authoritative texts as closely as possible to the disciples themselves. Hence his choice of authors, two supposed disciples and two supposed companions and/or secretaries to Peter and Paul. Of the MSS fragments that have come down to us none show any attribution until the early third century CE.

Something existed to show who the authors were. As Rogue noted, the synoptic gospels' authors were not major players in the early church. There was enough rigour in the process to prevent pseudonymous works being accepted, and enough to prevent Paul from being accepted as the author of Hebrews. The author of Acts wrote the gospel according to Luke, and was a companion to Paul in his travels during the latter part of the record of Acts. Whether that author was Luke, a claim for which there are no reasonable grounds for challenge, is really small potatoes.

In the fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis would condemn Montanism. Then there was the all too human issue of jealousy and rivalry as illustrated by the later behaviour of Bishop Demetrius towards Origen.

If the allegations by church writers against the Montanists are true, there was good cause to eschew their teachings. Whether the complaints were warranted is another matter altogether.

And of course we should not overlook the fact that many of those early ECFs held to subordinationism.

They did, and the scant few, none explicit, but only references in the Bible addressing the issue lend support to their view.

Certainly there were some individuals and groups that held to what would later become a proto-orthodoxy but their views carried no authority beyond their own communities. The religion was entirely fluid.

There was an orthodoxy - you might call to mind Paul's comments about unorthodox teachings.

[rogue06]

Why all the comment?

You wrote this:

The argument for the earlier date is based in part on that it was likely written just before or immediately after Paul's death. This is indicated by how Paul's fate is still up in the air and that the Temple still stood.

That suggests you were referring to Acts and not the gospel.

Oh Lord. She's back to adding a bunch of coding into her replies.

Pro tip: you don't have to code for black lettering. That is the default setting. You don't have to give font instructions for each sentence especially when you're using the same font.

Anywho... what part of

Luke wrote both works, and as already made clear, absolutely nobody thinks Acts preceded the writing of Luke.


Irrelevant. As already made clear, absolutely nobody thinks Acts preceded the writing of Luke.

are you incapable of grasping? If the gospel was written prior to Acts and it can be shown that Acts was written by such-and-such a time, then it has been demonstrated that Luke was written before that time.

It was a reference to a not uncommon criticism our mutual friend regularly makes to me when I refer to the views and opinions of accredited academics.

So it was just your usual nasty habit of trying to drag others into an argument every time you start to flail.

Have you thought of changing your avatar to Humpty Dumpty? You change the meaning of words in accordance with whatever you wish them to mean at any given moment.

Typical unsupported assertion.

Where exactly was I "sneering"?

Exactly where I said you were.

I simply remarked that apart from Lane Craig all of these individuals have obtained their qualifications from various seminaries/theological institutions and/or private universities [for the latter with the attendant concerns over academic rigour].

And that dismissive arrogance was corrected as I noted the institutes in question are all accredited schools, but that won't stop you from making the same insinuations does it?

Furthermore, obtaining qualifications from seminaries/theological institutions does suggest a predisposition on the individual’s which I consider requires a degree of caution when reading their comments.

Never mind that they might also be the best places to study those topics which is why those interested in them will go to a something like a seminary to learn even if they have no plans on ever becoming a member of the clergy.

It remains highly significant that one of the main reasons for the loss of so many ancient texts is that once Christianity gained ascendancy the interest was lost in copying many of these texts as Christians were less interested in reading them and/or the texts were condemned [for a number of reasons] by various Christian prelates.

Meanwhile, in the real world, where speculations are trumped by the facts, the fact is that numerous works that Christians would have been very keen on reproducing are lost to us. A huge number of works by the ECFs are only known to us by quoted snippets in later works. Polycarp is believed to have penned several works but all we know of is his Epistle to the Philippians.

Papias' multi-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is lost except for short excerpts by Irenaeus and especially Eusebius of Caesarea. Similarly, all we know of Hegesippus the Nazarene's history of the church as well as his five volume Hypomnemata ("Memoranda") regarding Apostolic teachings, is provided by Eusebius. And all we know of one Apostolic Father, Quadratus of Athens, is that he wrote an Apology, presented to Hadrian when he was attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries (c.120-130 A.D.). Eusebius mentions it and quotes a single sentence, whereas Jerome provides some biographical details in his Illustrious Men, although some think it influenced Irenaeus when it came to what he wrote about miracles.

In fact, Eusebius cites quite a number of works that are only known through his quotations of them. For instance he cites at least four books by Irenaeus now lost.

I probably should note that some of Eusebius' works are also lost.

Heck, even some of Paul's epistles were lost -- and you know they would be trying to preserve those (such as a third letter to the Corinthians mentioned in II Corinthians 2:4; 7:8-9, and set between the two we do have. Ephesians 3:3-4 mentions an earlier epistle he sent to them, and Colossians 4:16 mentions a possible now lost letter to the Laodiceans).

So your insistence on blaming Christians for all of the works being lost is misplaced.

That combined with war, accident, or deliberate destruction ensured that many texts were lost or are only referenced in other texts and/or bibliographies. The text of Celsus being a case in point. Had Origen not quoted his adversary at length we would have no idea as to what Celsus actually wrote because the Christians destroyed his works.

It should be noted that some of Origen's works are lost to us, such as his Hexapla. And that is anything but unique. Something like 15 works by Tertullian are lost. I guess that's because they weren't being copied.

Centuries before Christianity gained toleration other texts also suffered similar fates and we only know of them through references in extant texts that have come down to us.

No different than all of the texts written by Christian authors from that time which are lost to us. Some of them we only know by their titles without a single line being preserved.

Are you actually capable of engaging in dispassionate and mature exchanges? That you have yet again resorted to mendaciously distorting and adulterating what I have written and that again you feel the need to make puerile personal remarks is evidence that you still have the mentality of a ten year old shouting abusive taunts in the school yard.

If you don't like it being pointed out how you summarily hand wave things away then the solution is to stop summarily handwaving things away. Seems simple enough.

I simply question your

naïve acceptance that various Christian texts were written by the individuals to whom they are attributed.

And I simply point out that the objections that you bring up can easily be answered by such things as the fact that both Peter and Paul are known to have utilized secretaries/amanuensis which could account for such things as variations in vocabulary and style.

You like to bellyache about over-simplifying complex subjects, but it's all you do with respect to this.

Once again with regards to the campaigns in Gaul by Caesar you show your utter ignorance. To paraphrase a line "rogue06 does write the darndest things".

This is the crap I have to deal with in your posts

66dc79d2-57a7-46e9-b31a-6d0160143634.jpg
That for just 26 words. You even inserted a bunch of image codes into that mess

On what attested historical evidence?

I presented and quoted numerous academic sources that clearly stated that Caesar invaded and conquered Gaul. You disagree based largely on your say so.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Who to believe

Comments that once again indicate you know next to nothing of the history of your religion.

If so then please list the other names that have been offered for the authorship of the Synoptics smiley waiting-impatient.gif

Yeah. That's what I thought. Nothing but more bluster and bluff. Just what one would expect from a fraud.

The simple fact is that none of the canonical gospel writers named themselves and the earliest unequivocal linking of a particular name to a particular gospel is by Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century CE. He was concerned to link these deemed authoritative texts as closely as possible to the disciples themselves. Hence his choice of authors, two supposed disciples and two supposed companions and/or secretaries to Peter and Paul. Of the MSS fragments that have come down to us none show any attribution until the early third century CE.

And yet you'd have us believe that Irenaeus merely picked some names at random and Christians everywhere merely nodded in agreement.

It would seem that Irenaeus merely listed the names that were already associated with the works. From Petre Brant's^[1]The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

The first and perhaps biggest problem for the theory of the anonymous Gospels is this: no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist. As far as we know, they never have. ... the ancient manuscripts are unanimous in attributing these books to the apostles and their companions.

[...]

When it comes to the titles of the Gospels, not only the earliest and best manuscripts, but all of the ancient manuscripts— without exception, in every language— attribute the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As he explains, "there is “absolute uniformity” in the authors to whom each of the books is attributed." adding

In fact, it is precisely the familiar names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that are found in every single manuscript we possess! According to the basic rules of textual criticism, then, if anything is original in the titles, it is the names of the authors. 18 They are at least as original as any other part of the Gospels for which we have unanimous manuscript evidence.

His argument is that they were never anonymous works and that their authorship was always known (otherwise why would they be accepted), it's just that later copyists started adding it to the text.

There was no “orthodoxy” in the first two hundred and fifty years or so of your religion’s existence.

You keep saying that but more than your insistence is needed to make it true.

The fact is that during the Apostolic Age there most certainly orthodoxy and it was enforced by the Apostles. It isn't until well after their passing that we start seeing the heresies sprouting up -- starting in the middle of the second century.

Hence the various polemical writings against various Christian sects from other Christians. However, beliefs that would be were later condemned were defended by some of these ante-Nicene ECFs for example both Tertullian and Irenaeus considered the Montanists an admirable group and

Irenaeus defended their cause at Rome. In the fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis would condemn Montanism. Then there was the all too human issue of jealousy and rivalry as illustrated by the later behaviour of Bishop Demetrius towards Origen.

And at what time were these "various polemical writings" penned? During the Apostolic Age? In the decades immediately following? Or, like I said, after the middle of the second century after heresies started to pop up?

You really do have issues with trying to make things separated by decades, and even a century or so, into being contemporary with one another. You keep doing it over and over.

Could you rewrite that sentence as I have no idea what you are attempting to convey.

Let me know what exactly flew over your head.

Although I would ask you how many academics in these disciplines are among your personal acquaintances; and, more to the point, how many academic texts on the origins and transmission of the NT have you actually read?

Depends on what you mean by "these disciplines" and "personal acquaintances" and while being somewhat anal about such things, I've never counted.



1. I figure that you'll start franticly Googling him in hopes to dismiss him so I'll save you the trouble. From his bio:

Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at The Augustine Institute, and I received my Ph.D. in New Testament and ancient Judaism from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana

[rogue06]

In this case "accredited" means that the credentials gained at the institution in question are recognised by the appropriate regulatory authorities of the nation concerned. There are occasionally some problems with international recognition. A BTh (for example) gained at any American accredited institution will be recognised by an "Ivy League" University (for example) Harvard or MIT, so "questions about academic rigour" are moot. A PhD gained at any American accredited institution will also be recognised by "Ivy League" universities. That is why accreditation exists, and it is a major factor in the cost of providing courses.

Exactly. And losing your accreditation is devastating to an institution.

[tabibito]

This is the crap I have to deal with in your posts

That for just 26 words. You even inserted a bunch of image codes into that mess

Simple work around is to replace the text from the quote function with a copy paste of the post in question.

[rogue06]

Simple work around is to replace the text from the quote function with a copy paste of the post in question.

A simpler solution is to stop adding all of the coding.

[tabibito]

A simpler solution is to stop adding all of the coding.

Assuredly, but the work around defeats what seems to be the purpose.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There seems to be no disagreement with the composition date of Acts being after the composition date of the gospel according to Luke. There is reason to believe that Acts was written during Paul's lifetime, or shortly thereafter, so the gospel would have to have been written (prior to Acts and therefore) before Paul's death.

All of which is irrelevant to my initial comment

No-one sensible is going to challenge the fact that Matthew's genealogy of Christ is erroneous.

Is it? Or is Luke's erroneous? Or are they both simply examples of narrative embellishment and their respective author's imaginations?

Accreditation is no guarantee that the workmanship will be of an acceptable standard, as any number of home-buyers will attest.

I am not entirely sure how you make a correlation between house purchases and academia.

Ah ... accreditation isn't a strong enough criterion: you claim the right to decide whether or not the accreditation is valid. Even I don't go so far.

It remains extremely likely that students who opt to attend such institutions will generally have a bias or "baggage" concerning their personal beliefs/views to the subject. Hence that distinct possibility should be considered when assessing their comments. Lane Craig and Wright are both highly reputable academics but both hold religious beliefs that tend to colour their views.

Enough truth there to prevent any major objections. However, it was a fairly standard Roman practice - as you note below.

To what precisely are you referring with your comment "fairly standard Roman practice"[sic]?

What precisely was this “ fairly standard Roman practice”[sic]?

Celsus recorded the Christian teachings of his time: his might be a special case, given that those teachings fell into disrepute.

Perhaps you might cite the quotes from Celsus that refer to those "Christian teachings of his time" that you now consider have fallen "into disrepute"?

Yep, standard Roman practice - though I don't think Rome can be singled out: it might more properly be termed standard practice across the board. People on the wrong side of an argument got cancelled even then.

Are you contending that pre-Christian Rome engaged in widespread censorship? If so you will need to provide some examples dealing with non-Christian texts.

"Question" doesn't seem to be quite the right word, given that you don't allow any view that the attribution is valid can possibly be correct.

All I am offered from yourself and others are personal speculations and flights of fancy. The known historical situation and the contemporary attitude to pseudepigraphy seems to be a close book to both yourself, rogue06, and others. Furthermore the content, language, and style of certain NT texts places them quite beyond their alleged authors.

Something existed to show who the authors were.

What might that have been? We have traditions going back to Papias. Nothing more.

As Rogue noted, the synoptic gospels' authors were not major players in the early church.

Two are supposed to have been disciples.

There was enough rigour in the process to prevent pseudonymous works being accepted, and enough to prevent Paul from being accepted as the author of Hebrews.

The text was received at Alexandria as being Pauline and Clement in Rome considered it to be a Greek translation of Paul's original Hebrew text. Some others suggesting that translator might have been Luke. It was also quoted as Pauline at the Synods of Antioch [264-269 CE]

However, modern scholars virtually unanimously accept that its internal evidence marks it as non-Pauline while its style indicates it is unlikely to be a translation.

The author of Acts wrote the gospel according to Luke, and was a companion to Paul in his travels during the latter part of the record of Acts. Whether that author was Luke, a claim for which there are no reasonable grounds for challenge, is really small potatoes.

Pure speculation

If the allegations by church writers against the Montanists are true, there was good cause to eschew their teachings. Whether the complaints were warranted is another matter altogether.

Modern day pentecostalists/charismatics would appear to have some similarities.

They did, and the scant few, none explicit, but only references in the Bible addressing the issue lend support to their view.

That is debatable.

There was an orthodoxy - you might call to mind Paul's comments about unorthodox teachings.

There was no orthodoxy. Paul's comments concerned anyone who disagreed with him or challenged his gospel

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Irrelevant. As already made clear, absolutely nobody thinks Acts preceded the writing of Luke.[/BOX]

are you incapable of grasping? If the gospel was written prior to Acts and it can be shown that Acts was written by such-and-such a time, then it has been demonstrated that Luke was written before that time.

All of which is entirely immaterial to my comment on what you wrote.

So it was just your usual nasty habit of trying to drag others into an argument every time you start to flail

When I offer the opinions of accredited academics those individuals are often criticised and/or belittled or ridiculed.

Yet you take issue when I make a perfectly reasonable comment on the academics that you have cited.

Can you explain why, when you cite academics, their views are to be accepted without question?

Typical unsupported assertion.

It is based on your habit of using words by deciding that they mean something they do not. In this instance you accuse me of "sneering" [i.e. to speak or write in a manner expressive of derision or scorn]. So let me ask you again, where, in what I wrote, was I "sneering"?

And that dismissive arrogance was corrected as I noted the institutes in question are all accredited schools

According to what and by whom?

https://educationusa.state.gov/under...-accreditation

The United States has no federal Ministry of Education or other centralized authority exercising single national control over postsecondary educational institutions in this country.

The states assume varying degrees of control over education, but, in general, institutions of higher education are permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. As a consequence, American educational institutions can vary widely in the character and quality of their programs.

In order to insure a basic level of quality, the practice of accreditation arose in the United States as a means of conducting nongovernmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programs. Private educational associations of regional or national scope have adopted criteria reflecting the qualities of a sound educational program and have developed procedures for evaluating institutions or programs to determine whether or not they are operating at basic levels of quality.

[...]

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions and/or programs of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency.

That these accrediting agencies are private and that they develop evaluation criteria and conduct their own evaluations premised on their evaluated criteria does leave open the risk [to use a phrase] of "dumbed down" standards.

Is Bob Jones University really on the same academic par as Cornell? Does the curriculum library at Berkeley hold the textbooks that are found in the curriculum library at Biola and which explain the origins of the indigenous peoples of the Americas as a result of the collapse of the tower of Babel?

Does MIT in the wording of any of its statements concerning its practises and core values contend that students must believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve as does Bryan College?

As I noted there are some excellent theological institutions. However, there are also those that are somewhat lacking,

As I do not have a complete knowledge of what each institution provides nor its academic standards I therefore take a cautionary approach towards such institutions with which I am unfamiliar.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Meanwhile, in the real world, where speculations are trumped by the facts, the fact is that numerous works that Christians would have been very keen on reproducing are lost to us. A huge number of works by the ECFs are only known to us by quoted snippets in later works. Polycarp is believed to have penned several works but all we know of is his Epistle to the Philippians.

Papias' multi-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is lost except for short excerpts by Irenaeus and especially Eusebius of Caesarea. Similarly, all we know of Hegesippus the Nazarene's history of the church as well as his five volume Hypomnemata ("Memoranda") regarding Apostolic teachings, is provided by Eusebius. And all we know of one Apostolic Father, Quadratus of Athens, is that he wrote an Apology, presented to Hadrian when he was attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries (c.120-130 A.D.). Eusebius mentions it and quotes a single sentence, whereas Jerome provides some biographical details in his Illustrious Men, although some think it influenced Irenaeus when it came to what he wrote about miracles.

In fact, Eusebius cites quite a number of works that are only known through his quotations of them. For instance he cites at least four books by Irenaeus now lost.

I probably should note that some of Eusebius' works are also lost.

Heck, even some of Paul's epistles were lost -- and you know they would be trying to preserve those (such as a third letter to the Corinthians mentioned in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=II+Corinthians+2.4&amp;t=NI V" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.IICorinthians.2.4" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">II Corinthians 2:4</a>; <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=II+Corinthians+7.8-9&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.IICorinthians.7.8-9" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">7:8-9</a>, and set between the two we do have. <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Ephesians+3.3-4&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Ephesians.3.3-4" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Ephesians 3:3-4</a> mentions an earlier epistle he sent to them, and <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Colossians+4.16&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Colossians.4.16" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Colossians 4:16</a> mentions a possible now lost letter to the Laodiceans).

So your insistence on blaming Christians for all of the works being lost is misplaced.

That is evidence of some frantic Googling on your part.

However, you are merely repeating my own points concerning texts that have been lost.

And of course you employ your usual tactic of caricature and distortion. Nowhere in what I wrote was I "blaming Christians for all of the works being lost is misplaced".

However, the fact remains that Christians did destroy many texts.

And I simply point out that the objections that you bring up can easily be answered by such things as the fact that both Peter and Paul are known to have utilized secretaries/amanuensis which could account for such things as variations in vocabulary and style.

Arrant nonsense premised on your own flights of fancy. A secretary's job was to take dictation. He was not required to embellish or adapt what he was writing down

As you contend that it is a fact that Peter used a secretary, where is the evidence?

I presented and quoted numerous academic sources that clearly stated that Caesar invaded and conquered Gaul. You disagree based largely on your say so.

That is not the subject to which I was referring despite your constant attempts to pivot back to it.

The fact is that you dismissed Caesar's campaigns in Gaul with the following two statements

Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter.

And

with respect to the big picture it really didn't much matter.

Both of which self-evidently reveal that you have read nothing of substance concerning Caesar's campaigns despite your allegation that you had done so.

Yeah. That's what I thought. Nothing but more bluster and bluff. Just what one would expect from a fraud.

I gave you our known earliest source.

And yet you'd have us believe that Irenaeus merely picked some names at random and Christians everywhere merely nodded in agreement.

Where did I write that Irenaeus "merely picked some names at random"?

It would seem that Irenaeus merely listed the names that were already associated with the works. From Petre Brant's^[1]The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

My emphasis.

If you are going to quote the man you could at least give his name correctly.

His name is Brant J Pitre not Petre Brant. Your confusion clearly indicates that you have not actually consulted his text.

And once more this is his personal opinion [which is at odds with much academic thinking].

So perhaps you can tell us all why, and on what basis, we should elevate his opinions concerning the authorship of these texts, over the opinions of equally well qualified academics?
I would also point out that the earliest MSS in his list are from the second century and as the original MSS were not preserved they were presumably not considered overly important.

Furthermore, on what attested evidence is he alleging that:

The second major problem with the theory of the anonymous Gospels is the utter implausibility that a book circulating around the Roman Empire for almost a hundred years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of any disagreement in any manuscripts

To what "book" is he referring? And where is the evidence from his sweeping generalisation that these texts were "circulating around the Roman Empire for almost a hundred years"? Were they circulating in Lusitania or Pannonia or Germania?

If so, where is his evidence?

You keep saying that but more than your insistence is needed to make it true. The fact is that during the Apostolic Age there most certainly orthodoxy and it was enforced by the Apostles.

Read Paul's authentic letters and then read Acts. It is quite clear that the latter was a narrative intended to present the earlier period as harmonious when Paul's authentic letters show distinct tensions as well as his own arrogance concerning the superiority of his gospel.

It isn't until well after their passing that we start seeing the heresies sprouting up -- starting in the middle of the second century.

In the mid fifties CE these Christian sects were small, disparate, and dotted around the eastern empire. I sincerely doubt if their total membership consisted of more than a few hundred individuals at that period. That these early groups met clandestinely in people's homes likewise indicates their numbers were comparatively small.

And at what time were these "various polemical writings" penned? During the Apostolic Age? In the decades immediately following?

This "Apostolic Age" to which you repeatedly refer is nothing but a convenient apologetic convention which almost certainly has little basis in fact

Or, like I said, after the middle of the second century after heresies started to pop up?

How would you interpret/explain I Corinthians chapter two verses six to eight and II Corinthians chapter twelve verses two to five?

You really do have issues with trying to make things separated by decades, and even a century or so, into being contemporary with one another.

Christianity developed gradually and different people had different ideas and interpretations.

However, perhaps you can explain why, if as you are contending that from this "Apostolic Age" everyone was "singing from the same hymn-sheet" from where exactly did these supposed "heresies" of yours originate?

Let me know what exactly flew over your head.

Your atrocious syntax in this sentence does not make any sense:

I don't know of anyone who doubts that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.

Depends on what you mean by "these disciplines" and "personal acquaintances" and while being somewhat anal about such things, I've never counted.

Are you now trying to pretend that you habitually mix in academic circles?

[tabibito]

Is it? Or is Luke's erroneous? Or are they both simply examples of narrative embellishment and their respective author's imaginations?

Luke's might be erroneous, Matthew's manifestly is: the list of kings lacks for two entries. Reasons are advanced for the error in the record, but they don't and can't disavow its existence.

I am not entirely sure how you make a correlation between house purchases and academia.

The analogy addresses the issue of whether accreditation is a guarantee of an acceptable standard of workmanship.

It remains extremely likely that students who opt to attend such institutions will generally have a bias or "baggage" concerning their personal beliefs/views to the subject. Hence that distinct possibility should be considered when assessing their comments. Lane Craig and Wright are both highly reputable academics but both hold religious beliefs that tend to colour their views.

You yourself can make no claim to impartiality, and the students of other institutions are not free from bias or baggage. That is compelling reason to evaluate whatever is proffered from any source.

Perhaps you might cite the quotes from Celsus that refer to those "Christian teachings of his time" that you now consider have fallen "into disrepute"?

Most critically, that Logos had transformed to become human. A claim that Origen ridiculed.

All I am offered from yourself and others are personal speculations and flights of fancy. The known historical situation and the contemporary attitude to pseudepigraphy seems to be a close book to both yourself, rogue06, and others. Furthermore the content, language, and style of certain NT texts places them quite beyond their alleged authors.

Most of what we offer is firmly underpinned by reasoning and evaluation of arguments. That you consider them flights of fancy is your problem.

What might that have been? We have traditions going back to Papias. Nothing more.

They are traditions that you challenge without offering an example of empirical cause for doubt.

Two are supposed to have been disciples.

Of the synoptics? No. Only one might have been. Mark and Luke certainly were not.

The text was received at Alexandria as being Pauline and Clement in Rome considered it to be a Greek translation of Paul's original Hebrew text. Some others suggesting that translator might have been Luke. It was also quoted as Pauline at the Synods of Antioch [264-269 CE]

However, modern scholars virtually unanimously accept that its internal evidence marks it as non-Pauline while its style indicates it is unlikely to be a translation.

Attribution of authorship was subject to challenge very early in the piece, and for the same reasons that modern scholars advance. The argument is based in evaluation sound enough to be accepted.

Pure speculation

I speculate that Luke gave an honest and, within the limits of reasonable tolerance, taking into account the standards of the milieu, accurate account. You speculate that he was not honest. Luke's accounts show that he was a companion traveller with Paul. Without a reason to believe that he was dishonest, it is reasonable to believe that those sections of Acts are honest accounts.

Modern day pentecostalists/charismatics would appear to have some similarities.

At first glance, yes. It is not the similarities which cause difficulty. However, the times produced some odd interpretations of the teachings of those who were not favoured by the influential cliques.

That is debatable.

The scant few references indicate subordination. They are not strong enough to prove subordination, but there is nothing indicating co-equality in scripture.

There was no orthodoxy. Paul's comments concerned anyone who disagreed with him or challenged his gospel

There is ample reason to believe that Paul's gospel was stock standard orthodoxy.




From your comments addressed to Rogue.

When I offer the opinions of accredited academics those individuals are often criticised and/or belittled or ridiculed.

In the main, the individuals are not criticised or belittled, though that is infrequently done. When the individuals' findings are found wanting, the reasons for that evaluation are usually provided.


Re the criticism of Bryan College ...

• Listed in the Accredited Higher Institutions Bulletin published by the United States Department of Education.
• Listed in American Universities and Colleges, a publication of the American Council on Education.
• Approved under the various public laws, which have been passed by Congress for the education of veterans and the children of veterans including PL 16, PL 634, and PL 361.
• Approved by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the education of international students

Bryan College would seem to be acceptable to the US government, and the certificates and diplomas that it awards are recognised by other, more prestigious institutions. As with any accredited educational institution, the opportunity to be accredited is subject to a process that reflects peer review. Bryan College et al and the credentials they award are acceptable to ivy league universities. Do you believe that you are better qualified to decide which institutions should be accredited?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Luke's might be erroneous, Matthew's manifestly is: the list of kings lacks for two entries. Reasons are advanced for the error in the record, but they don't and can't disavow its existence.

Some might argue that we cannot "disavow" the existence of fairies and unicorns either. However, invented and/or divine ancestries/genealogies were not uncommon in the ancient world.

The analogy addresses the issue of whether accreditation is a guarantee of an acceptable standard of workmanship.

It therefore follows that [as you have put it] the "acceptable standard of workmanship" from individuals such as Loke, Licona, Pitre, and Habermas [all cited at various times by @rogue06] or indeed any academic in these disciplines irrespective of their leanings may likewise be questioned and challenged.

So why did you make the initial comparison with real estate purchases?

You yourself can make no claim to impartiality, and the students of other institutions are not free from bias or baggage. That is compelling reason to evaluate whatever is proffered from any source.

Any source?

Most critically, that Logos had transformed to become human. A claim that Origen ridiculed.

That is a very interesting reply. You initially wrote:

Celsus recorded the Christian teachings of his time: his might be a special case, given that those teachings fell into disrepute.

That led to my question to you that you:

cite the quotes from Celsus that refer to those "Christian teachings of his time" that you now consider have fallen "into disrepute".

Are you suggesting that the incarnation - the word being made flesh - is one of those "Christian teachings of [Celsus'] time" that has since fallen "into disrepute"?

Most of what we offer is firmly underpinned by reasoning and evaluation of arguments. That you consider them flights of fancy is your problem.

What you and others have offered are nonsensical speculations and flights of fancy.

For example, the various "explanations" by which an Aramaic speaking [and probably illiterate] Galilean Jewish fisherman suddenly [and without any attested historical evidence] became skilled in Greek rhetorical techniques that required study at higher levels, acquired a knowledge of Greek philosophical ideas [again requiring periods of of study] and was able to compose letters in high quality Greek prose.

The risible excuses proffered for this "transformation" were either that he somehow acquired this education at his own cost and time, or that an amanuensis/secretary did it all for him.

They are traditions that you challenge without offering an example of empirical cause for doubt.

Traditions in and of themselves cannot be considered as attested historical fact. There are rich and varied traditions about the Swan Knight as well.

Of the synoptics? No. Only one might have been. Mark and Luke certainly were not.

No. The four canonical gospels.

Attribution of authorship was subject to challenge very early in the piece.

Yet it was still considered Pauline in the late third century. In other words it took a considerable time for Hebrews to be accepted as non-Pauline. Nor would I be surprised to find individuals on these boards who still think it is Paul's work,.

I speculate that Luke gave an honest and, within the limits of reasonable tolerance, taking into account the standards of the milieu, accurate account. You speculate that he was not honest.

I did not "speculate that he was not honest". Why do you make these puerile accusations?

Luke's accounts show that he was a companion traveller with Paul. Without a reason to believe that he was dishonest, it is reasonable to believe that those sections of Acts are honest accounts.

The author was attempting to present the situation in the mid first century CE between Paul and the [often called] Jerusalem Movement as far more cordial and harmonious than Paul's authentic letters suggest.

There are also issues over dating this text. Very few early Christians writers refer to the work and from what can be shown it appears that neither Papias nor Hegesippus knew of it. Verses in both II Timothy and the extended Mark may show some awareness of material contained in Acts but that cannot be established with any degree of certainty and both verses may be based on other traditions parallel to Acts.

There are also some passages in the Epistle of Polycarp that may be of note. However, these are generally considered to be in the later of those two epistles that are combined in the so-called Epistle and that is dated by many to between 120-135 CE. Irenaeus was not silent with regard to Luke and it was Irenaeus who contended that the author of both the gospel and Acts was Luke, a figure that Irenaeus regarded as an "inseparable companion" of Paul. It is not inconceivable that Irenaeus came up with the idea himself given his comments concerning Marcion.

At first glance, yes. It is not the similarities which cause difficulty. However, the times produced some odd interpretations of the teachings of those who were not favoured by the influential cliques.

Yet according to rogue06 everyone from the "Apostolic Age" onward believed in the same things. So, from where did all these differences of opinion and interpretation arise?

The scant few references indicate subordination. They are not strong enough to prove subordination

There are various comments ascribed to Jesus to be found in the gospels that gave weight to the subordinationist position.

There is ample reason to believe that Paul's gospel was stock standard orthodoxy.

Only "stock standard" for Paul and those who followed/agreed with him. That is the way of cult leaders. Only their interpretations and ideas are valid.

From your comments addressed to Rogue.

What I wrote was this:

It remains highly significant that one of the main reasons for the loss of so many ancient texts is that once Christianity gained ascendancy the interest was lost in copying many of these texts as Christians were less interested in reading them and/or the texts were condemned [for a number of reasons] by various Christian prelates.

That combined with war, accident, or deliberate destruction ensured that many texts were lost or are only referenced in other texts and/or bibliographies. The text of Celsus being a case in point. Had Origen not quoted his adversary at length we would have no idea as to what Celsus actually wrote because the Christians destroyed his works.

Centuries before Christianity gained toleration other texts also suffered similar fates and we only know of them through references in extant texts that have come down to us.

That makes no mention of Rome or any other pre-Christian Classical society actively engaging in wholesale and deliberate destruction of texts.

In the main, the individuals are not criticised or belittled, though that is infrequently done. When the individuals' findings are found wanting, the reasons for that evaluation are usually provided.

Your consummate arrogance in your own abilities is duly noted

Do you believe that you are better qualified to decide which institutions should be accredited?

I would very much like to see the reading list for the History degree offered by Bryan College.

[tabibito]

It therefore follows that [as you have put it] the "acceptable standard of workmanship" from individuals such as Loke, Licona, Pitre, and Habermas [all cited at various times by @rogue06] or indeed any academic in these disciplines irrespective of their leanings may likewise be questioned and challenged.

Correct. It there are flaws that I can find they are likely to be quite basic. Subtle errors will probably escape my notice.

That is a very interesting reply. You initially wrote:

Celsus recorded the Christian teachings of his time: his might be a special case, given that those teachings fell into disrepute.

That led to my question to you that you:

cite the quotes from Celsus that refer to those "Christian teachings of his time" that you now consider have fallen "into disrepute".

Are you suggesting that the incarnation - the word being made flesh - is one of those "Christian teachings of [Celsus'] time" that has since fallen "into disrepute"?

I am not suggesting it, I am stating it plainly: that particular teaching has fallen into disrepute. It is not main-stream belief that Logos was made flesh. Main-stream belief has it that he simply occupied flesh, with some kind of merger: opinions vary as to how exactly how that played out in practice. It isn't so long since that Kenosis was deemed heresy, though it is nowadays considered merely unseemly.

Traditions in and of themselves cannot be considered as attested historical fact. There are rich and varied traditions about the Swan Knight as well.

A challenge advanced without a reason beyond speculation cannot be considered an attested fact.

No. The four canonical gospels.

John seems pretty solid. Matthew might be challenged.

Yet it was still considered Pauline in the late third century. In other words it took a considerable time for Hebrews to be accepted as non-Pauline.

Is it just an example of the unthinking acceptance of tradtionally held views without consideration and investigation? If it isn't, the claim that the identity of the authors is simply unfounded tradition suffers a nasty hit. The rejection of the claim for Paul's authorship of Hebrews provides evidence that tradition was in fact questioned.

Nor would I be surprised to find individuals on these boards who still think it is Paul's work,.

On these boards? The only one I can think of who believes Hebrews to be Paul's is not a Christian.

I did not "speculate that he was not honest". Why do you make these puerile accusations?

He says he was a companion traveller with Paul. You claim he was not: what other claim can you be making about his honesty?

The author was attempting to present the situation in the mid first century CE between Paul and the [often called] Jerusalem Movement as far more cordial and harmonious than Paul's authentic letters suggest.

Paul expressed no lasting conflict with any of the other apostles of his time. Such conflicts as did arise were brief.

Yet according to rogue06 everyone from the "Apostolic Age" onward believed in the same things. So, from where did all these differences of opinion and interpretation arise?

Well, not everyone. There seem to have been people creating a ruckus even in Paul's time.

There are various comments ascribed to Jesus to be found in the gospels that gave weight to the subordinationist position.

There are. They are also rationalised into oblivion.

Only "stock standard" for Paul and those who followed/agreed with him. That is the way of cult leaders. Only their interpretations and ideas are valid.

Across the board. Paul's writings do not conflict with the teachings of any other New Testament author.

What I wrote was this:

It remains highly significant that one of the main reasons for the loss of so many ancient texts is that once Christianity gained ascendancy the interest was lost in copying many of these texts as Christians were less interested in reading them and/or the texts were condemned [for a number of reasons] by various Christian prelates.

That combined with war, accident, or deliberate destruction ensured that many texts were lost or are only referenced in other texts and/or bibliographies. The text of Celsus being a case in point. Had Origen not quoted his adversary at length we would have no idea as to what Celsus actually wrote because the Christians destroyed his works.

Centuries before Christianity gained toleration other texts also suffered similar fates and we only know of them through references in extant texts that have come down to us.[/box]

That makes no mention of Rome or any other pre-Christian Classical society actively engaging in wholesale and deliberate destruction of texts.

You seem to be unaware of the implications of "similar."

Your consummate arrogance in your own abilities is duly noted

See my response to your first comment cited in this post.