Honor and Shame culture and the Bible?

[shunyadragon]

Why should we expect this for the Gospels when we don't have it for secular works never questioned? The earliest direct attribution of authorship of the Gallic War to Caesar comes from Suetonius writing about 160 years after it's publication. There are a few brief mentions of Caesar's "memoirs" before this by Cicero and Plutarch but that's it. The first to directly name the Gallic War and attribute it unequivocally to Caesar is Suetonius. Yet no classical historian disputes its authorship.

The Historians consideration of secular works do not make the claims that those believing in scripture like the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. Historians only consider ancient documents, religious and secular, in light of the present knowledge of the known literature and archaeological evidence. Like in all sciences the present knowledge is subject to change based on new evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Exactly. Here's the edit history for the page Roy linked to. It's been edited numerous times this year already. All by anonymous contributors. There's a reason no academic paper would dare use Wikipedia as a reference.

Yes, the articles in Wiki are subject to revision. You ignoring the fact that the article in question is supported by footnoted academic references. True, academics would not cite Wikipedia, but they would cite the references that wikipedia references.

[shunyadragon]

Any article on Wikipedia on a topic which is remotely controversial is automatically suspect because anyone can edit it and people with fringe views tend to push their view the hardest.

Yes, the articles in Wiki are subject to revision. You ignoring the fact that the article in question is supported by footnoted academic references. True, academics would not cite Wikipedia, but they would cite the references that Wikipedia references.

[Juice]

The Historians consideration of secular works do not make the claims that those believing in scripture like the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. Historians only consider ancient documents, religious and secular, in light of the present knowledge of the known literature and archaeological evidence. Like in all sciences the present knowledge is subject to change based on new evidence.

Uh, what?

[Juice]

Yes, the articles in Wiki are subject to revision.

Revision by anonymous editors.

You ignoring the fact that the article in question is supported by footnoted academic references.

Then Roy should've quoted those sources.

True, academics would not cite Wikipedia, but they would cite the references that wikipedia references.

Right. One of the tell tale signs one is dealing with a hack is they argue by a cut and paste from Wikipedia.

[Mountain Man]

Exactly. Here's the edit history for the page Roy linked to. It's been edited numerous times this year already. All by anonymous contributors. There's a reason no academic paper would dare use Wikipedia as a reference.

Bingo. Wikipedia was an interesting social experiment -- the idea being that the cream would rise to the top of a "crowd-sourced" encyclopedia -- but I think it has ultimately failed because there is no way of vetting contributors.

[shunyadragon]

Revision by anonymous editors.

Then Roy should've quoted those sources.

Right. One of the tell tale signs one is dealing with a hack is they argue by a cut and paste from Wikipedia.

You and others are still ignoring the academic citations cited in the articles. Shooting the messenger does not change the message.

[shunyadragon]

Bingo. Wikipedia was an interesting social experiment -- the idea being that the cream would rise to the top of a "crowd-sourced" encyclopedia -- but I think it has ultimately failed because there is no way of vetting contributors.

You and others are still ignoring the academic citations cited in the articles. Shooting the messenger does not change the message.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually, if you read the source it cites, it's not even a decent summary at that. Theissen and Merz are far more careful and nuanced with their language, and don't exactly say what the Wikipedia page would have readers believe. The book used as a source is only from 1998, but one aspect of it is outdated, which is a reference to The Secret Gospel of Mark which was later revealed to be a hoax.

This.

[shunyadragon]

Uh, what?

Uh, what? what?!?!?!!?

How about an intelligent response.

The Historians consideration of secular works do not make the claims that those believing in scripture like the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. Historians only consider ancient documents, religious and secular, in light of the present knowledge of the known literature and archaeological evidence. Like in all sciences the present knowledge is subject to change based on new evidence.

[Mountain Man]

You and others are still ignoring the academic citations cited in the articles. Shooting the messenger does not change the message.

The burden is on you, then, to demonstrate that the Wikipedia pull-quote accurately represents the academic sources, and furthermore that the academic sources themselves are credible.

Hop to it!

[Juice]

How about an intelligent response.

I gave one. You asserted this:

"If there were authored gospels early, say before 100 AD, you would have external evidence that would name and define the gospels."


I responded with this:

"Why should we expect this for the Gospels when we don't have it for secular works never questioned? The earliest direct attribution of authorship of the Gallic War to Caesar comes from Suetonius writing about 160 years after it's publication. There are a few brief mentions of Caesar's "memoirs" before this by Cicero and Plutarch but that's it. The first to directly name the Gallic War and attribute it unequivocally to Caesar is Suetonius. Yet no classical historian disputes its authorship."

You went off on this incoherent ramble:

"The Historians consideration of secular works do not make the claims that those believing in scripture like the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. Historians only consider ancient documents, religious and secular, in light of the present knowledge of the known literature and archaeological evidence. Like in all sciences the present knowledge is subject to change based on new evidence."

Tell me why we should expect there to be "external evidence that would name and define the gospels" within about 30 years (before 100AD) of writing when we don't have anything even close to that for the Gallic Wars? A secular text who's authorship no classist disputes. Do you or do not have a coherent rebuttal?

[Roy]

and they agree that Mark wrote Mark, etc.

Except they don't agree that. Some scholars reject the idea that the gospel of Mark was written by Peter's companion. There doesn't even seem to be consensus as to whether the various 'Mark's relevant to the NT are all the same person.

Yes he was a follower of Peter, and he is likely the same Mark in Acts. If the Church wanted to give the Gospel true authority, why did they choose the name Mark, instead of calling it "the Gospel of Peter"?

I don't know. Perhaps they thought the style was too dissimilar to that of the epistles. Perhaps they knew it was written by some-one called Mark who wasn't Mark the Evangelist. Perhaps they didn't want it to be confused with the other "Gospel of Peter".

That was one of my earlier points to Shuny. He seems to think their was some sort of "conspiracy" of the Church in the 2nd century to get rid of any gospels with other attributions on them and just attribute them all to the 4 authors we know now. If that were the case, they sure wouldn't have chosen "Mark" as one of the authors.

Why not? I'm not saying that there was any such conspiracy, but if there was a deliberate choosing of names for the gospels, who would you choose? An apostle, such as Matthew or John or Thomas or even Judas? Peter? One of Peter's companions, such as Mark? Paul? One of Paul's companions, such as Luke?

[Roy]

Max Ehrmann was a poet that died 60 years ago, I don't see how anything he says is relevant.

Max Ehrmann =/= Max Ehrman. Perhaps Shunya dragon was referring to the contemporary San Franciscan artist.

[Roy]

Exactly. Here's the edit history for the page Roy linked to. It's been edited numerous times this year already. All by anonymous contributors. There's a reason no academic paper would dare use Wikipedia as a reference.

Yes, I know that. I also looked at the Talk page which has a discussion of the relative merits and reliability of the various sources cited. But I'm not writing an academic paper - if I was I'd cite the actual sources, not the wiki page that refers to them - and the fact remains that the wiki page does cite sources that reject Markian authorship of the gospel. Also, that the authorship of the gospels is considered even "remotely controversial" suggests that there is no consensus.