Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

andrewcriddle wrote:

DCHindley wrote:I think Ehrman was not aware of the Kindle edition, which may account for Stephan's [sic] comment about the quality of Ehrman's research.

DCH

Andrew Criddle

NB I think you meant Steven's comment not Stephan's comment.

Quite right. Steven Carr ...

DCH

andrewcriddle wrote:I'm slowly working through Jesus evidence and argument or mythicist myths ? and I'm going to post a few thoughts. NB This is not going to be a proper review, just some of my thoughts.

The second chapter discusses historical method and presents a good case that new testament scholars know as much about historiography as is necessary in their field. IMO the criticisms of new testament scholars on this issue if valid at all are valid for scholars of the Ancient World as a whole. The chapter also presents preliminary evidence for the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic origins of a large part of the Jesus tradition. One could respond that even if some of the tradition does have such an origin, this doesn't make it historical. However modern mythicism (more so than earlier forms) does mostly see the Jesus tradition as having Grrek Hellenistic origins not Jewish Palestinian Aramaic origins.

More to come some time.

Andrew Criddle

I usually avoid anyone who enters any debate of any kind over the relative skills of historians, historiographers, chronographers, chronologists, etc., especially if arguments revolve around what groups or religions a person belongs to and whether that has a bearing on their ability.

At the end of the day, no argument presented, pro or con, can retell any part of history.

I hold suspect anyone who enters an argument like this if they don't have the sense to understand this principle.

The goal is to figure out what actually happened, not to retell it. The problem is that the Gospels are already "retellings" (at best), so we are forced to try to extract authentic history from fictionalized accounts. It's like trying to figure out what is historically accurate about Daniel Boone with only the Fess Parker TV show as a source.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The problem is that the Gospels are already "retellings" (at best),

This is a false premise.

The gospels claim to be the original writings of eye-witnesses, not "retellings", and no case can be made that the gospels are not what they claim to be (of course I'll entertain you if you'd like to dry).

I don't know what you're accustomed to, but I test all premises. You didn't actually think I would take that post seriously, do you?

Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels claim to be the original writings of eye-witnesses

No they don't. This is the second time you have flat out made something up (or been grievously misinformed) about what the Gospels claim about themselves.

If you want to assign specific authorship to these books, then you are the one with the burden of proof. None of those books originally had those titles or those names attached to them, so where do you get them from? You need to make the case here. You are not entitled to reverse the burden. Prove the Gospel of Matthew was written by a disciple named Matthew. The author of that Gospel does not make such a claim and never says his name, so why do you?

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels claim to be the original writings of eye-witnesses

No they don't. This is the second time you have flat out made something up (or been grievously misinformed) about what the Gospels claim about themselves.

If you want to assign specific authorship to these books, then you are the one with the burden of proof. None of those books originally had those titles or those names attached to them, so where do you get them from? You need to make the case here. You are not entitled to reverse the burden. Prove the Gospel of Matthew was written by a disciple named Matthew. The author of that Gospel does not make such a claim and never says his name, so why do you?

Matthew claims that he was one of the twelve and personally witnessed almost everything he wrote.
Mark claims to have written on behalf of Peter, an eye-witness.
Luke introduces himself in the first chapter as one who personally investigated the stories and interviewed eye-witnesses.
John names himself as an eye-witness.

If you had read the gospels, you wouldn't be here now lying about what they say and what they are.

Mental, you either misspoke or you don't know what you are talking about. If it is the latter, then it appears to me that you don't think anything can be discerned about history at all, which is why you know little about the gospel claims -- ie 'why bother--ie no truth can be determined from writings about the past' appears to be your position. Correct?

TedM wrote:Mental, you either misspoke or you don't know what you are talking about. If it is the latter, then it appears to me that you don't think anything can be discerned about history at all, which is why you know little about the gospel claims -- ie 'why bother--ie no truth can be determined from writings about the past' appears to be your position. Correct?

I'm an auditor by trade. Evaluating quality of evidence is a professional skill.

Name my error or move on. (You might be out of your league here.)

Mental flatliner wrote:Matthew claims that he was one of the twelve and personally witnessed almost everything he wrote.

Chapter and verse? I'll help you out. No such claim exists in the gospel of Matthew. You made this up.

Mark claims to have written on behalf of Peter, an eye-witness.

Mark claims no such thing. Are you really this badly misinformed, or do you think that I am?

Luke introduces himself in the first chapter as one who personally investigated the stories and interviewed eye-witnesses.

Nope. Luke says he reviewed written sources "handed down to us" from people he (erroneously) believed were witnesses themselves. Luke never says he talked to witnesses himself, nor would have been able to writing 60+ years after the fact in a totally different country. Moreover, we know what his sources were, they were Mark and Q with a few dollops of Josephus added in for verisimilitude. We also know he got a lot of stuff badly wrong and made a lot of stuff up.

John names himself as an eye-witness.

Nope. An appendix to John identifies (in the 3rd person, not the first) the "beloved disciple" (who is unnamed and never called John) as the author, saying (as an identification of the BD) "This is the disciple who witnessed these things and wrote them down, and we know that his testimony is true." This is another person making a claim about the text, not the actual author (and the appender was wrong).

If you had read the gospels, you wouldn't be here now lying about what they say and what they are.

The irony here is off the charts.

Mental flatliner wrote:

TedM wrote:Mental, you either misspoke or you don't know what you are talking about. If it is the latter, then it appears to me that you don't think anything can be discerned about history at all, which is why you know little about the gospel claims -- ie 'why bother--ie no truth can be determined from writings about the past' appears to be your position. Correct?

I'm an auditor by trade. Evaluating quality of evidence is a professional skill.

Name my error or move on. (You might be out of your league here.)

Diogenes is already doing that, saving me time thank goodness. Are you going to answer my question?