Eyewitness testimony isn’t all that reliable.
I’ve investigated traffic accidents where eyewitnesses told me (paraphrasing) “The green Toyota busted the light and hit the white Ford”, and I’m looking at the accident scene and seeing a blue Chevy and a brown Plymouth.
The Oxford companion is giving you tradition, not supported scholarship. Mainstream scholarship does not regard any of the authorship traditions of the Gospels as authentic.
Sure it can. I’ve already show why in this very thread. The dating, the language, the audience, the geographical errors about Palestine and the factual errors about Judaism all argue for those very conclusions.
I don’t know who you’re referring to.
I didn’t say they don’t qualify, I said we don’t KNOW if they qualify. We don’t know their beliefs at all (and Peter as first Pope is yet another historically unproven tradition).
How so? Give one example.
I am pushing neither idea. We don’t know how much of Paul’ doctrine was original to him, nor do we know much about the source material for the Gospels (at least not for Mark and Q). I don’t know any scholar who would try to argue that any of the authors made everything up out of whole cloth. They reworked and embellished pre-existing sources.
Cite? The first Gospel didn’t come out until 70 CE, the last in 100. Cite that any direct follower of Jesus was still alive.
The tradition about John is pure folklore, and there’s no evdience that any of the apostles were still alive, but even if they had been, these books were written outside Palestine in a Gentile language over a period of 40-70 years after the crucifixion. Copies of these books were not exactly mass produced and sold on Amazon. They hand copied at a snail’s pace and sparsely distributed among small congregations. It took 10-20 years for these books to achieve any kind of widespread distribution, and even then, they were obscurely known for the first couple of centuries. The odds that anyone who had known Jesus could somehow escape from Jerusalem in 70, and the creak along long enough to become aware of one of these books once they had been copied and distributed long enough to achieve any kind of noteriety are slim at best (and it should also be remembered that these books were not written in the apostle’s native language). People didn’t own individual copies of these books (it was too expensive and labor intensive to produce them on a mass scae, and most of them couldn’t read anyway). They were originally read aloud to congregations at large, so our hypothetical nonagenarian would have to discover the book by finding his way to a meeting in Asia Minor or Syria someplace. Let’s say he does. What’s he going to say…I was there, it didn’t happen? Who would care?
That’s not from Q, that’s from Mark. The Q material, by definition, is that material cpommon to matthew and Luke which is not found in Mark. Q is almost entirely sayings material. You can read it here. It contains a couple of pericopes which refer to healings and exorcisms (not particularly noteworthy claims for the period), but there are no nature miracles and no resurrection.
I don’t think you’re up on what Q is. Nothing in Mark is Q material. Q is by definition material which is NOT found in Mark. 90% of Mark is found in Matthew. maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.
Excellent thread!
Carry on.
I just had to comment.
I’m afraid that you overstate at least two of your assertions.
First, while there were, indeed, a large number of contributors to the work, (did you pull your description off the Amazon or Barnes & Noble blurb or the publisher’s blurb? ;)), each section is written by a single author. In the case of the Gospel of John, that author is Stephen Smalley. I am not familiar with his work, but if he was the one who asserted the John-the-apostle-dictated-his-memoirs version of authorship, I will assert that he is seriously out of step with most scholars. (He may have been included among the selected contributors because the chief editor, Bruce Metzger, was a big proponent of the “apostolic involvement” notion of authorship, but it still remains outside mainstream scholarship.)
Second, your claims for “highest level of scholarship and as unbiased as humanly possible” is simply not true. I respect the scholarship involved in the oxford, but the idea that there is as little bias as is humanly possible is simply one opinion, itself biased to assert an undeserved level of authority. Unlike stuff published by the Moody Bible Institute, the Oxford book was not written with a deliberate bias, but it still follows particular directions of scholarship favored by Metzger and his associates.
Reviewing Kümmel’s Introduction to the New Testament, which attempts to bring together as many separate scholars as possible, I find few attempts to establish a Johanine authorship and a general conclusion that such cannot be claimed. (And my edition is not a new one, so we are not talking about some radical new theory.) Raymond Brown does not assert a Johanine authorship and I cannot find anyone other than Smalley who actually does.
Well, fine, if you don’t like the Catholic Encyclopedia, here’s a more recent source:
http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/3trust.html
It addresses the specific archaeological find and explains how we know that Lysanius the Tetrarch of Abilene is distinct from the earlier Lysanius. The point being, that the issue of Lysanius as a supposed falsehood in Luke is wrong. In fact, archaeology vindicated Luke on that issue.
Your source’s most recent cite was 1962 and the mean of all its cites is 1922. This is not an impressive refutation of the oldness of your information.
Here is a link to the book that makes the claim of “recent archaeological evidence” (as of 1962 
), if anyone who understands German wants to see where it is getting its information from.
Actually, the Muslims allowed many Jews to return to Jerusalem, something that had been previously denied to them by the Byzantine Empire. Also the Muslim occupation put an end to the persecutions Jews had suffered from the same Byzantine empire during the first part of the 7th century. As far as I know, it is generally considered that the situation of the Jews in the middle-east was very significantly improved by the Arab conquest. There are reports of Jews actively helping the Arabs in their conquest in the middle east, North-Africa and Spain, due to the betterment of their condition under Arab rule.
Regarding Palestine and Iraq, for instance :
(sorry for the poor translation)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I guess I’m just being even slower on the uptake than usual, but how does this statement:
prove that a second Lysanius existed?
No, the Oxford Companion gives about one line to tradition, and spends the rest of the 3 pages discussing potentianl authorship based upon scholarship. You haven’t even read it, so you have no idea of what you’re talking about. In fact, one of the theories they discuss is also discusses in wiki :Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[23] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979). wiki sez this about Brown:* Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and their claim that he cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.[1] He was regarded as occupying the centre ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars…Brown was one of the first Catholic scholars in the United States to use the historical-critical method to study the Bible…Brown has been described as “the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world…Brown’s work was controversial among traditionalists who objected to the elements of his work that they regarded as casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.*
You use the term “Mainstream scholarship” and I have quoted Mainstream scholarship from Oxford, you seem to think Infidels is “Mainstream scholarship” whereas it’s worthless for scholarship, being so biased you might as well quote a Chick tract.
*John, son of Zebedee, natural causes due to old age, last of the twelve to die, only one of the twelve to die naturally *
The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his “Dialogue with Tryphon” (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to “John, one of the Apostles of Christ” as a witness who had lived “with us”, that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Against Heresies III.1.1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Church History III.13.1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96)… After Domitian’s death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.
You know if you don’t know enough about the NT to know that John died at a great age, around ad100, then all you know you get from Infidels. Not much of a scholar.
“Gentile language”? You don’t know that most educated Jews spoke and wrote Greek?
http://www.jewish-languages.org/judeo-greek.html
*Ancient Judeo-Greek
Like many other peoples of the Hellenistic world, the Jews were well acquainted with the Greek language and used it as a lingua franca, a language of culture and a means of everyday communication. Ancient Judeo-Greek may be studied from epigraphic sources and Bible translations, such as the Septuagint, Aquila, etc.
When circumstances were favorable – and in Greece they were – the Jews continued to use Greek throughout late antiquity and the Byzantine period. The language relics that have reached us from this historical stage are scarce, limited mainly to Cairo Genizah fragments and solitary glosses in Hebrew/Aramaic texts*.
If you are basing your arguments that if it wasn’t written in Hebrew, it isn’t the work of Jews, your knowledge of the Holy Land from that period is sadly lacking. *Mark *also regularly included Aramaic quotes and translating them into Greek.
Note the Septuagint.
Paul was literate in Greek and wrote in that language.
John “escaped” from Jerusalem and spend most of his later life in Ephesus.
You also accused me of getting my facts from “You are spouting religious beliefs, not evidence” and “Again, this is a religious belief unsupported by actual evidence” working from some sort of idea that anyone that disagrees with your Infidels cites must be some sort of Christian beleiver. I am not. Other than a faint hope that there is some sort of afterlife, and the Karma seems to work, I have no religous beliefs. I do not attend Church, I am not a member of any religous faith. You are the only one arguing from faith here, arguing from the position of a devout Atheist.
I counted the number of authors, contibributors and editors from the front of the book.
And Raymond Brown does assert a Johanine authorship of sorts, at least as the origin of John. See my cite above.
Here’s another cite that indicates other beleive it was John:
Internal Evidence:
The proposition that the author of the Gospel of John is ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ and also the one who leaned on His breast at supper (21:20 cf. 21:7) and that the same person is indeed the apostle John is supported by a number of lines of evidence under three main points:
The writer was personally known to the High Priest and entered his residence along with Jesus on the night when Jesus was arrested (18:15). This author alone mentions the fact that it was the servant of the High Priest who had his ear cut off by Peter (18:10). This author deals with questions which are relevant to the period prior to AD 70 and not with controversies which were occurring in the second century connected with the Gnostic and Ebionite groups. (cf 6:15; 11:47-50) Many other details indicate contempoaneity with the events described.
The opening words of the book demonstrate an acquaintance with Hebrew (cf Genesis 1:1). On three occasions there are quotes from the Hebrew (12:40; 13:18; 19:37). There is intimate knowledge displayed regarding the Hebrew festivals viz. the Festival of Booths (7:2 Tabernacles KJV) the Feast of Dedication (10:22) and the Passover (21:13,23; 6:4; 13:1;18:28). Jewish customs and ways of thinking are familiar to the author eg. questions about purification (3:25;11:55), marriage customs, especially the method of arranging the waterpots (2:1-10); customs relating to burial (11:38,44; 19:31,40). Knowledge of the geography of Palestine is demonstrated such as the descent from Cana to the Sea of Galilee (2:12) and also the fact that Jacob’s well is deep (4:11). Specific places such as Ephraim (11:54), Mount Gerizim (4:20), Jerusalem and the Kidron valley (18:1), Bethsaida and Siloam (5:2; 9:7), and Golgotha (19:17 etc).
This can be deduced in a general sense from the above facts. He indicates the precise hours when particular events took place (1:39; 4:6,52; 19:14). He records quotations of the disciple Philip (6:7; 14:8), Thomas (11:16;14:5), Judas (14:22), and Andrew (6:8-9). He leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper on the night of the betrayal (13:23-25) and was among the three ‘inner circle’ of Peter, James, and John. Peter is distinguished from this author by name in 1:41-42;13:6,8 and James had become a martyr very early, long before the Gospel was written (Acts 12:2). He has a particular way of introducing himself (John 13:23; 19;26; 20:2; 21:7,20). These facts cumulatively make it difficult to come to any other conclusion, but that John was the author of the Gospel which bears his name.
Source: The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Merril F. Unger, Moody, Chicago. 1988. p 701.
I guess I should have given ITR’s post a little better response than just laughing at it.
The Lysanias that Josphus talks about and who is historically confirmable was Tetrach of Abilene from 40 BCE until he was killed in 36 BCE (which Riss gets wrong as 34 BCE).
The apologist argument is that a Greek inscription found on a Temple at Abila claims that Lysanias established “this street and other things” for "the salvation of the “August Lords” (KURIWN SEBASTWN) can only refer to Tiberius and his mother, Livia (wife of Augustus) because (so the claim goes) the title of “Augusta” was not used in reference to Livia before Tiberius. That claim, however, is false. Augustus and Livia were referred to collectively as “August Lords” during Augustus’ lifetime, and the inscription almost certainly refers to Augustus and Livia, not Tiberius and Lvia.
In addition, we know who the Tetrach of Abila/Abilene was in the 15th year of Tiberius. It was Herod’s son, Philip, who, oddly, Luke (seemingly unwittingly) acknowledges as such in the passage in question:
*In the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate ruled Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene… *
Abila/Abilene was in Itrurea, though Luke seems unaware of this.
Deth, you’re just repeating yourself. You don’t know the scholarship, the stuff you’re citing is out of date and you’ve done nothing to address the evidence AGAINST the traditional authorships. I think we’ve both put up enough of our positions in this thread that pothers can decide for themselves what they think. We aren’t going to convince each other, that’s for sure.
I did think this was funny, though:
Heh. So does 24. Details are a prevalent charateristic of fiction. I’m surprised that apologists ever even bother trying with this angle.
I am not arguing with you because I clearly don’t know as much as you in this subject. However, I don’t find it difficult to believe that the romans impose a census in Judea before it became a roman province. Pompeyo Magno imposed a lot of things to jews, well before that.
Technically Judea was a client kingdom but in reality they were subjects to the romans and had to pay tribute. Because of this romas, would probably require a census.
No. Client kingdoms were never subjected to Roman censuses. It was up to the local King to collect and pay tributes. It was part of Herod’s deal for helping Augustus come to power that he would be left alone in that regard. Censuses were also extremely unpopular with the Jews, and Quirinius’ caused riots. There is no record of Herod ever imposing any census, and if he had done it, it would have been written about.
Furthermore, Judea was still never under the jurisdiction of any SYRIAN Governor before Herod died.
I do know the scholarship, all you can do is cite Infidels.:rolleyes: Do you actually have any cites that are unbiased and scholarly? Please trot them out.
I didn’t cite Infidels, I linked to a pice written by Richard Carrier which is hosted by Infidels, but I posted it for convenience, not as an appeal to authority. Either you can respond on the evidence or you can’t. I’m more than happy to discuss nothing but raw evidence.
Most men of that period were functionally illiterate*. But the masses of graffiti, clearly written by and for the lower uneducated classes, make it clear that at least a low level of literacy was more common that some have thought.
*Errors in spelling and grammar in this graffiti offer insight into the degree of literacy in Roman times and provide clues on the pronunciation of spoken Latin. Examples are CIL IV, 7838: Vettium Firmum / aed[ilem] quactiliar[ii] [sic] rog[ant]. Here, “qu” is pronounced “co.” The 83 pieces of graffiti found at CIL IV, 4706-85 are evidence of the ability to read and write at levels of society where literacy might not be expected. *
A basic ability to read slowly through some holy works, (where it’s half rote memorization anyway) would not be suprising even in the son of a carpenter.
I can, so give me a legit cite,* not Infidels*, and I’ll be happy to. So far, nothing.