Re: Atheist assumptions dating Gospels are wrong
Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 11:03 am
NO sorry it doesn't work that way. Biblical schoalrs approach the Biblical text as a archaeologist approaches a dig.It's all artifacts. whatever the artifacts in the basic nature, weather fictional or historical or true or false in essence, their existence as artifacts teaches us something.Charles Wilson wrote:Metacrock wrote: Luke liked Mary. He probalby used as a source. His line of genealogy is thought to be Mary's line (Edershiem). Matthew seems to by the throne and line connecting Jesus through Joseph as his assumed father to the throne of Israel. Luke is not too concenred with that he would rather trace Mary. what does that have to do with the birth narratives?Charles Wilson:There is a HUGE problem in all of these discussions. You cannot use "Paul's Writings" to date the Gospels if "Paul" is under examination as well. Questions about "Genealogies" have little meaning if the authorship of the genealogy is itself under question.
We might question various aspects of Paul's discourse but the fact his he alludes to certain belief which had to exist at that time or he could not talk about them so we know those beliefs existed. HE alludes to the resurrection, by alluding the burlier he alludes to the rising form the dead. he doesn't mention the empty tomb. he mentions a set of post res sightings that proves those beliefs existed int he early by mid century.
He's only one of seven levels. By the same token the nature of the writings preserved that indicate an earlier tradition (for example in the Gospel of Peter) prove those beliefs were around at an early date. Koeter feels he can locate them mid first century. That coincides to some extent with the Paul material.
that doesn't prove it's a fabrication. you don't quote what information he's using. You don't show that's he's using the same relationship as Matthew 11. That's guilt by association.Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 1, 3:
"It is true that Nicolatls (sic) of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews..."
So Nicholas of Damascus writes a genealogy for Herod for the purpose of allowing Herod to become High Priest if he so desired. What of it? Important point: "...that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon..." Where have we seen this before?
Matthew 1: 11 - 12 (RSV):
[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel,
Now, this fabrication of Nicholas of Damascus, Political Control Officer answerable to Caesar (as well as Ptolemy, NoD's brother and Keeper of Herod's Seal...) goes back to Herod and there are many references going back to Jannaeus as well. Going forward finds references to the Temple Priests continuing after the shock of Archelaus. The Battle of Actium is for the World and Herod is on the wrong side but at least there is something there!
first of all no modern scholar uses the genealogies for dating of the Gospels. I sure don't. That's just neither here nor there.That is why, whether the Dating is done by atheists or believers, the end result will not matter. Until the Cross Cultural boundaries are examined, we cannot assume that there was "Paul who lived and wrote in the 40s" or whatever.
Secondly that doesn't call into question the writings Paul it has nothing t do with them.
crack pots, lunatics, ignorant people and other forms of atheists like bash Paul. it's just a function of thier ignorance. most schoalrs love Paul. Most say Pual was brilliant, he was complex, his Greek was excellent. He writes the best Greek int eh Bible even better than native Greek Luke and Luke was supposed to be educated.The Logic of "Paul" has been examined and "Paul" is found wanting.
[/quote]He clearly states that his "revelation" came from no man. The Gospels were written after "Paul" and they are written as from people who are "looking back". They are "Constructions" and positing "Communities" studying "Sayings" that range from Jannaeus to Domitian is most certainly not helpful. There cannot be early dates for these materials because the Cause of these writings has not yet occurred, i.e. the road grading of Judea at the command of Titus. The Ascension of the Flavians at the expense of the Julio-Claudians. The Pruning of Eleazar with the Grafting of the Flavians. Through 2000 years, the History of the Jews has been minimized, hidden and degraded. There is a History to examine but it is not based on "Expectation Values" or "Partial Derivatives" that hold certain values true when examining other values that vary. Or Stealing a Culture to manufacture "Signs" that would Glorify Caesar.
you are not getting the point. You are assuming that Mark the first guy to eve write about Jesus. that's not true. we know that for a fact. there could not be a Q source if that were true. Q was Use dby Matthew not by Mark and it has to be older because Matthew is only a few years after Mark and Q source has to already be fully formed and disseminated.
Moreover, the Jurgen Danker stuff I talk about with the The Diatessaron (c 160–175) is early readings in latter ms. In other words the The Diatessaron (c 160–175) is written in late second century but it preserved writings from the mid first century. So we can tel by the writing itself that it's early. that's what textual criticism does.
