Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    We have your unsubstantiated word for it that the originals were extensively redacted and edited before being compiled in the form we now have.
    The evidence to the contrary is plain enough: if the writings had been altered in any substantial way, the passages that conflict with later theologies would not exist. Instead, what we have are attempts in commentaries to re-interpret the wording of the originals to make it seem that later theologies have scriptural support.
    We do find variants in different MSS.

    Furthermore, when was the longer Mark written? Likewise the pericope of the adulterous woman in John and the additional chapter in that text after chapter twenty has clearly stated - my emphasis:

    Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue[e] to believe that Jesus is the Messiah,[f] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    First absolutely no copies nor scraps of the gospels exist before 200 BCE, Second some scholars project the dates of some version of the gospels existing between 60-120 AD, but their is not agreement. Third, the original gospels did not have authors ascribed to them.

    Concerning the editing and redacting of the gospels over time:

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels



    From oral traditions to written gospels

    © Copyright Original Source

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels



    In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations; but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[50] The stages of this process can be summarised as follows:[51]

    1. Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
    2. Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
    3. Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels;
    4. Canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John composed from these sources.

    The New Testament preserves signs of these oral traditions and early documents:[52] for example, parallel passages between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and the Pauline epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews on the other are typically explained by assuming that all were relying on a shared oral tradition,[citation needed] and the dedicatory preface of Luke refers to previous written accounts of the life of Jesus.[53] The early traditions were fluid and subject to alteration, sometimes transmitted by those who had known Jesus personally, but more often by wandering prophets and teachers like the Apostle Paul, who did not know him personally.[54] The early prophets and leaders of local Christian communities and their followers were more focused on the Kingdom of God than on the life of Jesus: Paul for example, says very little about him beyond that he was "born of a woman" (meaning that he was a man and not a phantom), that he was a Jew, and that he suffered, died, and was resurrected: what mattered for Paul was not Jesus's teachings or the details of his death and resurrection, but the kingdom.[55] Nonetheless, Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus’ original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus.[56][57] Paul's first meeting with Peter being around 36 AD.[57]

    The four canonical gospels were first mentioned between 120 and 150 by Justin Martyr, who lived c.100-185.[citation needed] Justin had no titles for them and simply called them the "memoirs of the Apostles", but around 185 Iraneus, a bishop of Lyon who lived c.130–c.202, attributed them to: 1) Matthew, an apostle who followed Jesus in his earthly career; 2) Mark, who while himself not a disciple was the companion of Peter, who was; 3) Luke, the companion of Paul, the author of the Pauline epistles; and 4) John, who like Matthew was an apostle who had known Jesus.[citation needed] Most scholars agree that they are the work of unknown Christians[58] and were composed c.68-110 AD.[59] The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[60] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[61][62]

    © Copyright Original Source

    That is one very long list of assertions based on suppositions. Convince us that, on the basis of no evidence whatever (by your own admission), this account of the development of the Biblical corpus can be asserted to be more than an imaginary construct.

    What we do have is Luke's claim that others had set about writing their own versions of the gospel before him and that he had been a companion traveller with Paul. The record of Acts ends when Paul had been imprisoned for two years, which sets a date of composition at two years after Paul was placed under house arrest in Rome. Only one assumption need be made to consider that Acts was written around 60CE - 63CE: that the author was telling the truth. Acts clearly follows on from Luke's gospel, which therefore must have been written before Acts, and Luke's gospel records the existence of other gospels when Luke first decided to pen his account.

    Oh - and at least the synoptic gospels, Hebrews, and 1Corinthians were cited before the end of the first century CE, by Clement of Rome.
    Last edited by tabibito; 02-20-2024, 12:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    We have your unsubstantiated word for it that the originals were extensively redacted and edited before being compiled in the form we now have.
    The evidence to the contrary is plain enough: if the writings had been altered in any substantial way, the passages that conflict with later theologies would not exist. Instead, what we have are attempts in commentaries to re-interpret the wording of the originals to make it seem that later theologies have scriptural support.
    First absolutely no copies nor scraps of the gospels exist before 200 BCE, Second some scholars project the dates of some version of the gospels existing between 60-120 AD, but their is not agreement. Third, the original gospels did not have authors ascribed to them.

    Concerning the editing and redacting of the gospels over time:

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels



    From oral traditions to written gospels

    © Copyright Original Source

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels



    In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations; but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[50] The stages of this process can be summarised as follows:[51]

    1. Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
    2. Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
    3. Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels;
    4. Canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John composed from these sources.

    The New Testament preserves signs of these oral traditions and early documents:[52] for example, parallel passages between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and the Pauline epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews on the other are typically explained by assuming that all were relying on a shared oral tradition,[citation needed] and the dedicatory preface of Luke refers to previous written accounts of the life of Jesus.[53] The early traditions were fluid and subject to alteration, sometimes transmitted by those who had known Jesus personally, but more often by wandering prophets and teachers like the Apostle Paul, who did not know him personally.[54] The early prophets and leaders of local Christian communities and their followers were more focused on the Kingdom of God than on the life of Jesus: Paul for example, says very little about him beyond that he was "born of a woman" (meaning that he was a man and not a phantom), that he was a Jew, and that he suffered, died, and was resurrected: what mattered for Paul was not Jesus's teachings or the details of his death and resurrection, but the kingdom.[55] Nonetheless, Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus’ original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus.[56][57] Paul's first meeting with Peter being around 36 AD.[57]

    The four canonical gospels were first mentioned between 120 and 150 by Justin Martyr, who lived c.100-185.[citation needed] Justin had no titles for them and simply called them the "memoirs of the Apostles", but around 185 Iraneus, a bishop of Lyon who lived c.130–c.202, attributed them to: 1) Matthew, an apostle who followed Jesus in his earthly career; 2) Mark, who while himself not a disciple was the companion of Peter, who was; 3) Luke, the companion of Paul, the author of the Pauline epistles; and 4) John, who like Matthew was an apostle who had known Jesus.[citation needed] Most scholars agree that they are the work of unknown Christians[58] and were composed c.68-110 AD.[59] The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[60] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[61][62]

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    I did not say that. It was their compiled, edited and redacted versions that were available after ~200 AD.

    Are you saying we have evidence of the gospels existing as they are a few decades after the death of Jesus Christ?
    We have your unsubstantiated word for it that the originals were extensively redacted and edited before being compiled in the form we now have.
    The evidence to the contrary is plain enough: if the writings had been altered in any substantial way, the passages that conflict with later theologies would not exist. Instead, what we have are attempts in commentaries to re-interpret the wording of the originals to make it seem that later theologies have scriptural support.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    I did not say that. It was their compiled, edited and redacted versions that were available after ~200 AD.

    Are you saying we have evidence of the gospels existing as they are a few decades after the death of Jesus Christ?
    Are you saying that the Christians of the first couple centuries were so stupid that they were unaware that the scriptures they listened to being read every Sunday were changing radically? Because that is sort of baked into your assumption.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You really think that the Gospels hadn't been written until some time after ca. 230 A.D.?
    I did not say that. It was their compiled, edited and redacted versions that were available after ~200 AD.

    Are you saying we have evidence of the gospels existing as they are a few decades after the death of Jesus Christ?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    I consider HP's response to be very comprehensive and accurate in response to your very questionable post which was very speculative as to the nature and extent of ancient writings and oral traditions, You clearly have an an agenda to justify the reliability of the gospels that ere not completely compiled, edited and redacted until more than 200 years after the death of Jesus. Yes some versions were available over 60-70 years, but we have nothing available at this time after the fact, but that is not a few decades.

    The reliability and historicity of the Pentateuch is even more questionable compiled after 600 BCE.
    You really think that the Gospels hadn't been written until some time after ca. 230 A.D.?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    And you might want to check out your snide, and less than scholarly, dismissal of it, so the conversation was decidedly one-sided.
    I consider HP's response to be very comprehensive and accurate in response to your very questionable post which was very speculative as to the nature and extent of ancient writings and oral traditions, You clearly have an an agenda to justify the reliability of the gospels that ere not completely compiled, edited and redacted until more than 200 years after the death of Jesus. Yes some versions were available over 60-70 years, but we have nothing available at this time after the fact, but that is not a few decades.

    The reliability and historicity of the Pentateuch is even more questionable compiled after 600 BCE.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-19-2024, 07:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Cilicia had been annexed to Syria (Syria Cilicia Phoenice) since 27 BCE. "Augustus (r. 31 BCE - 14 CE) joined Cilicia to Syria as the province of Syria-Cilicia Phoenice. It is for this reason that Cilician cities, most notably Tarsus, are often cited by ancient historians as being Syrian." https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6138
    .
    With Cilicia being annexed to Syria, and with Quirinius commanding troops in Cilicia - Quirinius was in fact commanding in Syria from about 12 BCE, not as a civil governor, but as a general - (ηγεμονευοντος can equally apply to either post).

    The first census conducted while Quirinius was commanding in Syria was in fact that associated with the Lustrum of 8BCE.
    What prompted you to resurrect this? Is it Easter already?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Cilicia had been annexed to Syria (Syria Cilicia Phoenice) since 27 BCE. "Augustus (r. 31 BCE - 14 CE) joined Cilicia to Syria as the province of Syria-Cilicia Phoenice. It is for this reason that Cilician cities, most notably Tarsus, are often cited by ancient historians as being Syrian." https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6138
    .
    With Cilicia being annexed to Syria, and with Quirinius commanding troops in Cilicia - Quirinius was in fact commanding in Syria from about 12 BCE, not as a civil governor, but as a general - (ηγεμονευοντος can equally apply to either post).

    The first census conducted while Quirinius was commanding in Syria was in fact that associated with the Lustrum of 8BCE.
    Last edited by tabibito; 02-17-2024, 10:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It would indeed be impossible for both to be correct if ηγεμονευω only had the meaning that you choose to impose on it. Fortunately, additional information available from Luke shows that Humpty Dumpty does not rule the word's definitions in reality.
    My love of Carroll not withstanding the word is used as the writer of Luke intended it. It is a general military term and it was used in that context for Quirinius the governor. The author of Luke also uses it in reference to Pontius Pilate in 3.1.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I have already stipulated that, unlikely as it is, Luke may simply have referred to the wrong person, but not otherwise be incorrect.
    On what attested and accredited historical evidence?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The simple fact that the census of 6CE is not the one referred to by Luke is demonstrated by other evidence provided by Luke
    On what attested and accredited historical evidence?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Nothing in Luke shows that Quirinius conducted a census in Judaea prior to 6CE, nor even in that year.
    The author of Luke states it was the first with his use of the Greek adjective πρωτος.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a client king would have been exempt from conducting an empire wide census.
    What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a one-off request would not have been made in the event that a general principle exempting client states applied.
    What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Judaea was in fact subject to taxation by Rome, albeit in one context only, from the middle of the first century BCE.
    Firstly tribute is not precisely the same as a tax. Secondly tribute payments would have been collected by Herod's own officials, not those of Rome. Thirdly, it remains uncertain as to whether Herod continued to pay a regular tribute despite the fact that a fixed sum had been stipulated when he was appointed as King.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    All up - some uncertainty must be admitted regarding a census conducted at the time of Christ's birth. No evidence strong enough to allow the conclusion that Luke WAS BEYOND DOUBT mistaken has been advanced.
    Josephus gives us a precise date for this census.

    Originally posted by tabibito
    If the previously ceded point that some uncertainty attends Luke 2:2 fails to satisfy, so be it.
    The author of Luke makes it clear he is referring to the 6 CE census conducted by Quirinius. However ,I will repeat my remarks from my post #154 referencing H R Moehring

    The arguments against the Lucan account were best summarised by Schürer and they deserve to be mentioned again at this point.
    • History, except for the passage in Luke, knows nothing of a general census throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus.
    • A Roman census could not have obliged Joseph to travel to Bethlehem and for Mary to accompany him.
    • A Roman census could not be carried out at all in Palestine during the time of Herod.
    • Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine at the time of Herod; on the contrary, he speaks of the census in AD 7 as something new and unheard of.
    • A census held under Quirinius could not fall into the time of Herod, since during Herod’s lifetime Quirinius was never governor of Syria.
    This is a formidable list of problems and no one has ever come close to solving all of them.

    [My added emphasis]

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    You have provided nothing by way of conclusive evidence
    The historical evidence exists but you will not accept because you want to fit the history to the gospel accounts of Jesus' age during his ministry and his death. In other words you want want theocratic history not proper history.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    - except to show what was already known: Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.
    What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?


    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Then recognise another discrepancy, namely that the two birth narratives contradict one another.

    They cannot both be historically correct.
    It would indeed be impossible for both to be correct if ηγεμονευω only had the meaning that you choose to impose on it. Fortunately, additional information available from Luke shows that Humpty Dumpty does not rule the word's definitions in reality. I have already stipulated that, unlikely as it is, Luke may simply have referred to the wrong person, but not otherwise be incorrect. The simple fact that the census of 6CE is not the one referred to by Luke is demonstrated by other evidence provided by Luke re Christ's age and the time that John the Baptist began his ministry.

    Nothing in Luke shows that Quirinius conducted a census in Judaea prior to 6CE, nor even in that year.
    Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a client king would have been exempt from conducting an empire wide census.
    Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a one-off request would not have been made in the event that a general principle exempting client states applied.

    Judaea was in fact subject to taxation by Rome, albeit in one context only, from the middle of the first century BCE.


    All up - some uncertainty must be admitted regarding a census conducted at the time of Christ's birth. No evidence strong enough to allow the conclusion that Luke WAS BEYOND DOUBT mistaken has been advanced.

    If the previously ceded point that some uncertainty attends Luke 2:2 fails to satisfy, so be it. You have provided nothing by way of conclusive evidence - except to show what was already known: Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    You have evidence that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant - I have already posted a copy of one discrepancy in the records.
    Then recognise another discrepancy, namely that the two birth narratives contradict one another.

    They cannot both be historically correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    And my point stands. No evidence will change your preconceived theological beliefs for which you have not one iota of attested historical evidence. Your entire contention is premised on the writings of the author of Luke and the unsupported assumptions made by Ramsay.

    What you and others who hold to an inerrant bible will not accept is that the two birth narratives found in the New Testament cannot both be correct. Known history does does not support it.
    You have evidence that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant - I have already posted a copy of one discrepancy in the records. I have already posted acknowledgement that there are different textual streams for the New Testament - any mismatch between the documents in those streams shows that there is an error somewhere. Likewise, Rogue (I think it is) posted a comment about three different streams in the Old Testament records, together with a graphical presentation.

    I will not make apology for dismissing the comments of authors who ignore the context and content of Biblical records.

    The fact that you can insist that I believe the Biblical record to be inerrant after I have posted comments demonstrating that not to be the case is a testament to your self blinding prejudice, and nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Whatever else might be said, when he wrote of a census at the time of Christ's birth, Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

    Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...

    Pretending that Luke was referring to the census of 6CE would have Jesus starting his ministry in the final year of Pilate's tenure.

    Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene [(John the Baptist began his ministry)]

    According to Luke, John the Baptist began his ministry in 29CE, the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign. Had Luke been referring to the census of 6CE as the time of Jesus' birth, that would have put Jesus in his early twenties, not in his thirties.

    And my point stands. No evidence will change your preconceived theological beliefs for which you have not one iota of attested historical evidence. Your entire contention is premised on the writings of the author of Luke and the unsupported assumptions made by Ramsay.

    What you and others who hold to an inerrant bible will not accept is that the two birth narratives found in the New Testament cannot both be correct. Known history does not support it.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-14-2021, 11:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
162 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
130 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,507 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X