Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Metacrock wrote:The assumptions that atheist make about dates and times are totally wrong.

Gospels written 60-100 years after the events
that nothing was written about Jesus story before mark
subsuming mark into Matthew somehow negates mark as an early source.

all of that is wrong. The Jesus story existed in writing, with empty tomb, mid first century, just 20 years or so after the events.

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html

"Just 20 years or so after the events" . . . .

Here is what Gilbert J. Garraghan, author of A Guide to Historical Method, cited from various historians and what he wrote himself about records of events appearing as late as 20 years after their supposed occurrence:

¶ 260 LATE APPEARANCE OF TRADITION

It is typical of popular tradition that it is first heard of long after the time when the events it reports are supposed to have occurred. Almost invariably there is a gap, more or less broad, between the events and their first appearance in recorded history. Such a gap occurring in the case of any report is enough to make it suspect from the start. Instances of such reports, found on examination to be unverified, are without number. Thus, unaccountably tardy first-mention of them in written record of any kind is a major argument used by critics in discrediting such one-time general beliefs as the False Decretals, the Popess Joan, the authenticity of the reputed works of Denis the Areopagite. Again, no contemporary biographer of St. Thomas of Canterbury records that his mother was a Saracen princess whom his father had married in the Holy Land.

----- John Morris, "Legends about St. Thomas," The Life and Martyrdom of St. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury ( 2d ed., London, 1885), 523-25.

That Luther committed suicide is a story first heard of some twenty years after his death, when it began to be circulated by persons hostile to his memory.

----- H. Grisar, Martin Luther, his Life and Work, 57578.

The "Whitman-saved-Oregon" story first became public many years after Whitman's death.

-----See Edward G. Bourne Essays in Historical Criticism.

The Ann Rutledge-Lincoln episode appears to be mainly legendary. No mention of it occurs until thirty-one years after her death.

-- AHR, 41 ( 1936): 283.

A crucial point to be noted about such beliefs as those indicated is that when mention of them in written record emerges for the first time, no reason is forthcoming to explain why mention of them had not been made earlier.

Now Garraghan is a dominant reference in the Wikipedia article on Historical Method that anti-mythicist Professor James McGrath, The Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Literature and Language at Butler University, recommends to anyone who wants to understand how history really works -- unlike those silly mythicists who have no idea about real historical methods.

Now I'm not suggesting that it is an iron-clad rule that any report that appears 20+ years after an event should be suspect. But such reports do have a number of special tests to pass. One of these is the fact that enemies and worshipers have had time to fabricate self-serving stories.

Bernard Muller wrote:"Gospel" itself is even less accurate into naming these texts because they are not much about "good news".

They're not??

Bernard Muller wrote:
"Gospel" itself is even less accurate into naming these texts because they are not much about "good news".

They're not??

I said "not much". In the sense few verses in them are about good news for Christians.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote:The focus [[of Luke 22:44]] is on his sweat that takes on the appearance of drops of blood. Interesting imagery and all but the use of "blood" points to a person who is actually bleeding from the head from a wound, either by sword or by stone.

True, I have the verse in question as an early interpolation on my webpage. For more details, consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ%27s ... Gethsemane
But Lk22:43-44 appears in more ancient copies than the ones without it.

Bernard-

1. I wanted to close a little hole in the argument I made. (Note: I map a lot of material to the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE and sometimes it is necessary to repeat that this analysis is on the "Other Side" of the various Time Lines and analyses given by various "Church Fathers".) I made a statement that I thought that the verse with "Jesus' sweat like clots of blood" mapped to 4 BCE.

2. Mark 12: 1 - 4 (RSV):

[1] And he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country.
[2] When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard.
[3] And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.
[4] Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully.

Not surprisingly, the Symbolism is centered on the Temple and Antonia. "Your mileage may vary". Mark has spent some time setting this scene, see Turton although the Chiastic Structure is inhibited here with "All dialogue gets its own Bracket". Nonetheless, I see it as taken from material from the Passover of 4 BCE. Here's where I began matching up death and brutality and ended up in Luke 22: 44:

Luke 22: 44 (Moffatt) and repeat Mark 12: 4:

[44] he fell into an agony and prayed with greater intensity, his sweat dropping to the ground like clots of blood.
...
[4] Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully.

This may be the Death of John the Baptist in 4 BCE. John did not get to "The Realm of Heaven" and so died in the Atrocity. It may be a reach here but if the Luke verse is in doubt, so then the conclusion concerning John.
In any event there is a verse that tells of someone bleeding from the head from a wound. On the other side of the dividing line, this idea cannot be. From my side, however, it is a very real possibility.

CW

neilgodfrey wrote: "Just 20 years or so after the events" . . . .

Here is what Gilbert J. Garraghan, author of A Guide to Historical Method, cited from various historians and what he wrote himself about records of events appearing as late as 20 years after their supposed occurrence:
.....

Now I'm not suggesting that it is an iron-clad rule that any report that appears 20+ years after an event should be suspect. But such reports do have a number of special tests to pass. One of these is the fact that enemies and worshipers have had time to fabricate self-serving stories.

You make good points, Neil,
but have you read my stuff here in BCH, in FRDB, on Theology Web, Christian Forums and Debating Christianity that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus, of which three were written before the Ascension? I'm not receiving any serious attempts at refutation anywhere. Reminds me of the old saying, "Let George do it." Where's George!?
Dale Adams

Adam wrote:but have you read my stuff here in BCH, in FRDB, on Theology Web, Christian Forums and Debating Christianity that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus, of which three were written before the Ascension?

No. Seven? Only seven as a sum of 3 and 4 and not 1 and 6? Is that a sign they were inspired by God? There was a real ascension? Do your arguments stack up against anything else Garraghan had to say about historical method?

Metacrock wrote:again if you would read teh link in the op it would be a lot better. but since you want, here's page 2 of the link.

Here is what you put in the link, and even Metacrock himself called his own link 'nonsense'


''It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.'

The link contains nonsense - Metacrock called his own link 'nonsense', and said anybody who wrote that 'nonsense' must be unhinged.

You have to laugh...

Here is one of the passages in Paul that Metacrock claims is a Gospel saying in the web page he linked to

1 Corinthians 14
'37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.'

This is not a Gospel saying or even a reference to any Gospels, and it simply shows that Metacrock is seriously deluded as anybody who tries to communicate with him is aware.

neilgodfrey wrote: Now Garraghan is a dominant reference in the Wikipedia article on Historical Method that anti-mythicist Professor James McGrath, The Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Literature and Language at Butler University, recommends to anyone who wants to understand how history really works -- unlike those silly mythicists who have no idea about real historical methods.

Now I'm not suggesting that it is an iron-clad rule that any report that appears 20+ years after an event should be suspect. But such reports do have a number of special tests to pass. One of these is the fact that enemies and worshipers have had time to fabricate self-serving stories.

In the cases quoted there are reasons (sometimes multiple reasons) to doubt the claim other than the time gap. For events that would have been reasonably widely known at the time to have happened, (or not happened), memory tends to preserve a reliable core for 50 or more years.

For example by the time the Gospels were written Jesus' supporters and opponents preserved a memory that Jesus did remarkable cures. His followers attributed this to God and their opponents attributed it to evil spiritual powers. But the memory of Jesus as a healer/exorcist is probably historically basically true.



Andrew Criddle

Hi Bernard,

Yes, I saw this many year ago. My reaction is the same now as it was then: It would be expected that the later gospel text would reuse phrases from earlier pre-gospel Christian text. The later more popular works are usually dependent on the early less popular, forgotten works for their material, not the other way around.

For example, in Philip Wylie's novel "The Gladiator" the lead character Hugo Danner develops great physical abilities. He can jump "higher'n a house" and run "faster'n a train." One might suspect that Wylie had read Superman comics as a kid, or listened to the Superman radio show, or watched the 1940's Superman cartoon series when he would have heard the expressions "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" and "more powerful than a locomotive." The fact is that Wylie's novel came out in 1930, and Jerry Siegel, the creator of Superman, first published in 1938, has admitted being influenced by Wylie's novel.

In their religious zeal to prove the uniqueness of their favorite creation, Christian scholars turn history on its head and see the "sources" of their material as "copycats." or "borrowers." It is perfectly natural and to be expected.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Bernard Muller wrote:

Memoirs are nothing like the gospels. They are completely different genres. Could a man as well educated as Justin Martyr not have known the difference? Highly unlikely. Since 50 or more other works that seem to be from the Second century are also unaware of the gospels, the chances of Justin Martyr having made such a serious mistake here is quite remote. No other writer, as far as I recall ever calls the gospels "memoirs".

Well, in the time of Justin, "gospels" was not systematically used for these texts. However, these canonical gospels can be considered memoirs by Christians (religion distorts secular meaning of words!) even today. "Gospel" itself is even less accurate into naming these texts because they are not much about "good news".

Since 50 or more other works that seem to be from the Second century are also unaware of the gospels

This is not as I posted already. Actually, quite a few pre-150 authors seem aware of the gospels. More details here http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard