Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness
View Post
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
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
Date and Reliability of the Gospels.
Collapse
X
-
βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostNot really. Papias does not say Matthew wrote a 'gospel', but an ordered account of the Lord's oracles. He also spoke of others translating these as they were able. Were any of these other translations written, were any in use at the time of Papias? An ordered account of the Lord's oracles sounds like it could refer to the five major discourses found in our current gospel of Matthew, and thus it could even refer to the gospel of Matthew as we know it now, but this is speculation. It is not evidence. It is important to distinguish evidence from assumptions and speculation.
The question to me is this:
I know Markan priority explains the internal data well. But I think mine does as well. (The grammatical changes in Mark would be due to writing style, memory and Peter's influence). There is nothing wrong with Matt being proficient in Greek in my opinion. (If he was a tax-collector, wouldn't he have to be proficient in Greek?).
I think the Early Church fathers are unanimous in the order and language of the gospels and nothing Papias says necessarily implies anything different.
Here is a list of arguments as to why Markan Priority is pretty much universal in scholarship
(https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem)
Which ones do you think (besides the bad Greek) that my hypothesis doesn't address adequately?
At this point, I feel that I am wasting your time so after you respond, I will respond once more and this thread would be over (if you want to respond to that one, go ahead).-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostOk fair enough. But what about Eusebius who would have known the context? And why did no other Church father (that we are aware of) interpret it differently?
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostThe question to me is this:
I know Markan priority explains the internal data well. But I think mine does as well. (The grammatical changes in Mark would be due to writing style, memory and Peter's influence). There is nothing wrong with Matt being proficient in Greek in my opinion. (If he was a tax-collector, wouldn't he have to be proficient in Greek?).
I think the Early Church fathers are unanimous in the order and language of the gospels and nothing Papias says necessarily implies anything different.
Here is a list of arguments as to why Markan Priority is pretty much universal in scholarship
(https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem)
Which ones do you think (besides the bad Greek) that my hypothesis doesn't address adequately?
At this point, I feel that I am wasting your time so after you respond, I will respond once more and this thread would be over (if you want to respond to that one, go ahead).βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Last Post then for me
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThe church fathers lived at a time prior to the development of the historico-critical method.
No time to read your link, sorry, but I can say that your explanation does not account for the generally secondary character of Matthew's text to that of Mark. A few examples of which I mentioned above. Early on, I also invited you to choose any pericope of the triple tradition and I will show you what is meant by this--not just by me, but almost all historico-critical scholars. You constantly just reduce this grammar and style, and that is part of it, but it is also a matter of improvement, not just of grammar, but of what Wallace refers to in your link as hard readings.
The problem with the Hard readings argument is that, no matter what, Mark simply wrote what he understood from his sources or what he thought was right regardless of whatever source he got it from. If he didn't think it was right, he wouldn't have incorporated it into his gospel. In other words, the Hard sayings are interpretations of Mark's sources (or possibly, what Mark's sources said themselves like Peter.)
That invitation still stands.
You also do not have a convincing explanation for why Peter and Mark both left out some very beautiful and profound material, eg, merely saying that they forgot about the beatitudes or the Lord's prayer, etc.
Secondly though, even if they were profound to Mark, he may have decided not to include them on the basis that Peter never really emphasized them in his speeches. We don't have any evidence that Peter spoke about things like the sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer.
And Mark was apparently conceived of as being Peter's preaching:
"And thus when the divine word had made its home among them [the Christians in Rome], the power of Simon [the magician] was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2, 2.16.1)
Another weakness in your theory is that you completely ignore the gospel of Luke. You seemed to be unaware above of the idea that Luke used any sources. Any good solution to the synoptic problem should be able to account for textual similarities and differences among all three synoptic gospels.
instance.). He would have likely consulted Matthew as well as other sources to make his gospel.
How would you account for Luke not including any of the changes of order in Matthew and yet including all of the double tradition material?-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Well, I'll make a response to this one as well :)
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostHow do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?
There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
3. He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...iii.xxxix.html
From the Above, it can be seen that Papias' works were existent in the time of Eusebius and that Eusebius read the preface of Papias'-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostOk and? Even if they did, the Church has always understood the Order of the Gospels as being Matt, Mark, Luke and John (ever since Irenaeus at least up until much later) with Matt being written in Hebrew. If the internal evidence doesn't contradict this, then the traditions should not be assumed to be false.
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostThe problem with the Hard readings argument is that, no matter what, Mark simply wrote what he understood from his sources or what he thought was right regardless of whatever source he got it from. If he didn't think it was right, he wouldn't have incorporated it into his gospel. In other words, the Hard sayings are interpretations of Mark's sources (or possibly, what Mark's sources said themselves like Peter.)
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostOk how about the Olivet discourse. That would certainly be interesting
Mt 24,3 Whereas in Mark, the disciples only ask about the destruction of the temple, in Matthew their question is broader, asking also about when the parousia will be and the end of the age. Why would Peter or Mark leave this out?
Mt 24,5 Matthew clarifies the ambiguous, "I am he," with a much clearer claim, "I am he, the Messiah." Matthew also adds an explanatory conjunction that is missing in Mark’s somewhat rougher Greek.
Mt 24,6 Matthew adds another explanatory conjunction and supplies Mark’s missing verb. The latter addition is rendering Matthew’s Greek less Semitic than Mark’s text.
Mt 24,9 Whereas Mark's Jesus only speaks of the disciples being beaten in synagogues, Matthew increases this to the disciples being tortured and put to death and being hated by all nations. Note Matthew has moved some of Mark’s material to 10,17-22.
Mt 24,14 ‘and then will come the end’ added to Mark’s text to make a better correspondence with 24,6, which was also improved by Matthew.
Mt 24,15 identifies Mark’s allusion as coming specifically from the book of Daniel. He also corrects the participle from masculine to neuter so that it corresponds to the neuter noun.
Mt 24,20 Matthew adds the subject that is missing from Mark’s verb.
Mt 24,27 Matthew adds a Q saying and again adds ‘the parousia’ to the Q saying, just as he did to Mark’s text in Mt 24,3
Mt 24,30 Matthew again adds the subject that is missing from Mark’s verb.
Mt 24,31 Matthew adds ‘the loud trumpet call’ to make this passage more explicitly eschatological, in line with his changes to 24,3 and 24,27.
Mt 24,36-51 Matthew adds additional and extensive Q material here (cf already 24,27). Luke does not add this Q material here. Matthew also adds extensive Q and Matthean material in Mt 25 to complete this final, climactic sermon of Jesus. Threre is no good reason why Peter and Mark would have supposedly deleted this material.
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostFirst of all, that is very subjective in itself. You need to show that it must have been profound or beautiful to Mark. I find Quantum Mechanics beautiful and profound but that doesn't mean it is to you.
Secondly though, even if they were profound to Mark, he may have decided not to include them on the basis that Peter never really emphasized them in his speeches. We don't have any evidence that Peter spoke about things like the sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer.Last edited by robrecht; 02-18-2014, 10:51 PM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostWell, I'll make a response to this one as well :)
Here's Eusebius
There are extant five books of Papias, ...Last edited by robrecht; 02-19-2014, 06:55 AM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug ShaverHow do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostFrom the Above, it can be seen that Papias' works were existent in the time of Eusebius and that Eusebius read the preface of Papias'
“These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenæus.*
For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth;
Comment
-
He was not much impressed with Papias, as we know from the comments I quoted above, and this would coincide with his inclusion of so little material if he did indeed know the whole work.
"12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses."
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostWhere does he say this? I can't seem to find it in the sayings attributed to him.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostHe doesn't say it. He merely describes how he believes Mark wrote his gospel before he describes how Matthew wrote his.
“This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.13-16
Maybe it reads different in the Greek, but from the English translation it just reads like Eusebius is describing Papias' thoughts on Matthew and Mark. It doesn't appear to be saying anything about chronological order, or even what order Papias described them first.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostI thought scholars generally chalked that up to differences in their eschatological beliefs (as previously mentioned by QW) because of the following passage:
"12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses."
3,39,11-13
The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings (ξένας παραβολὰς καὶ διδασκαλίας) of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things (ἄλλα μυθικώτερα), among which his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding (παρεκδεξάμενον) of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving (μὴ συνεορακότα) that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding (σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν), as one can see from his words ...
καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀγράφου εἰς αὐτὸν ἥκοντα παρατέθειται ξένας τέ τινας παραβολὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος καὶ διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ καί τινα ἄλλα μυθικώτερα· ἐν οἷς καὶ χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης· ἃ καὶ ἡγοῦμαι τὰς ἀποστολικὰς παρεκδεξάμενον διηγήσεις ὑπολαβεῖν, τὰ ἐν ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς αὐτῶν μυστικῶς εἰρημένα μὴ συνεορακότα. σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμηράμενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται ...
If we believe Eusebius, Papias' eschatology was only one of the more mythical things that he related, among a multitude of strange parables and teachings of the Savior.Last edited by robrecht; 02-19-2014, 10:51 AM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
55 responses
261 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:13 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
158 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
103 responses
569 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-18-2024, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment