TedM wrote:Metacrock wrote:TedM wrote:Are you kidding? You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts. They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings. How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on. Do you know that 90% of Mark is included in Matthew? Do you know that Papias, our first reference to the gospels, wrote that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of Jesus? Not at all like the book of Matthew. And that Mark wrote things he heard from Peter, but not in a chronological manner. Mark actually is quite chronological. Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.
Most people simply don't know this stuff. They think that the gospels are straight from the disciples mouths.
(1) you are trying to judge Gosepls by modern criteria without knowing anything about the literary genres of the age.
(2) I don't think that well read in modern terms, much less ancinet.
Hi Metacrock. I'm not understanding your objections here. Please explain.
Hey Ted. Ok let me try to be more clear. you say:
You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts.
I don't contend that the Gospel writers say "this is eye witness stuff." The obviously implication is there. they clearly believe it,and their info is coming form eye witnesses. the redactors whose work we have and we think of as "Mark" or "Matthew" are not eye witnesses themselves. At least not necessarily. but they using statements by eye witnesses and they are assuming that that's what they are.
It's not a work of fiction. they are not telling a story.
They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings.
2000 years ago they didn't have court rooms, court room evidence, a social scinece called "hsitory>" docudramas or "reality shows." What they had was stories and these are some of them. that doesn't they don't assume they are true. They are following a literary convention that has nothing to do with weather or not its' true.
How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on.
The community as a whole witnesses certain events, such as Jesus on the cross. Or Jesus speaking to the multitudes. Others among them witnesses more privates events such as the empty tomb. Or Jesus telling Judas "what you have to do do quicley." all of that was distilled into pericopes (pronouned< Per-ic-o-pees), that is story units. they did that so they could memorize it. they had an oral tradition where they memories the words of their teachers. It's broken down into units easy to memorize then told to the group as a whole in communal situations such as dinner. I'm guessing here but I imagine new comers were required to recite the stories as teachings then spit them back in front of the eye witnesses. that's the way oral tradition was done. No reason to assume they didn't do it that way.
Do you know that 90% of Mark is included in Matthew?
so what? I fail to see why that is so meaningful to you.
Do you know that Papias, our first reference to the gospels, wrote that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of Jesus? Not at all like the book of Matthew.
I knew that. that doesn't invalidate Matthew. scholars no longer think of Gospels as produced by one author. they are seen as produced by communities. hey redacted by the community they were told by the community in oral form. The redactors edited and write down the oral transmission.
And that Mark wrote things he heard from Peter, but not in a chronological manner. Mark actually is quite chronological.
the community redacted those efferent. Matthew wrote a saying source and someone else combined it with action and events. It's still based upon the understanding of the community including its eye witness. Mark shows signs of having been composed by someone from Galilee. there may be evidence that Peter is behind it. Then the community redacted it and polished and there are several versions. The version quoted by Luke is somewhat different form the version quoted by Matthew.
they all agree on the same plot, the same characters, same events.
Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all.
that doesn't follow. you think eye witnesses are like documentaries where they follow the same pattern they tell all the same details that's rubbish. the fact that it's complied out of several sources does not remove i from being eye wittiness. It still has historical validity that can be demonstrated on seven levels.
oral tradition
the original pre mark redaction
canonical Gospels
non canonical Gospels
Paul (what he learned from Jerusalem chruch and Pricilla and Aquilla)
Paul (his saying source)
church fathers