Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi Jay,

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.

Well, that's would describe Q relative to gMatthew & gLuke.

The later more popular works are usually dependent on the early less popular,

That describes gJohn, gMatthew and gLuke relative to gMark.

forgotten works for their material, not the other way around.

Forgotten (or disappeared!) or not, I do not think there is any general rule.

Cordially, Bernard

PhilosopherJay wrote: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.

of cousre you have no textual proof of that. that's all based upon the need to fit the facts to the theory.

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

Most Jesus myth thinking comes from fictional works and uses fiction for documentation. It takes a Ph.D. in philosophy to do that.

neilgodfrey wrote:

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

They're not??

¶ 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.

you are taking that quote out of context to make it appear that the situation with the Gospels and the original events fits the quote. like most Jesus myther types you are trying to tailor the facts to fit the theory. Would the original author, have agreed? I doubt it. While it appeared for a long time that there was this big gap, it acutall turns out there was no such gap.

John Morris to whom you allude was a priest. I doubt that he had in mind disproving the Gospels.

first the gap is created (bewteen events such as crucifixion--and writing of Gospels) by the dating that purposely puts the Gospel way up in a very late time no modern scholar excepts. further I have proved that the were writing about the resurrection just 18 years after the events. we have non canonical gospels saying source and Paul's letters and other epistles of the NT that fill that alleged void bewteen 33AD and 70AD/

there was no gap.

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.

what the hell does that have to do with anything?

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

neilgodfrey wrote:

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.

I just disproved that. the idea that 20 years is this huge gap such that the quotes you quote (out of context) apply is ludicrous. I closed the gap form 60 or 200 years in some cases with real idiots to 20 years. that's the life time of eye witnesses. so its in the realm of eye witnesses and controlled oral tradition. Thus that's not even a valid point.

during that 20 year period the story was not just reverberating with wild random rumor. the proof is that there is only one story.k myth always proliferates. when it doesn't one of the major reasons is because everyone knows it's true the are not at liberty to embellish. So there being one story of Jesus is a good indication that it was known to be true. moreover, during that 20 years it was being told by the rules of oral tradition: they memorized it they spit back word for word with eye witnesses (no doubt) to check to make sure they didn't alter it.

the only reason for doubting that is becuase one wants to doubt.

andrewcriddle wrote: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.

This is hypothesis. We have no evidence for the supporters and opponents of Jesus existing or preserving memories about him of any kind. This is entirely a hypothetical model through which the evidence is interpreted.

Certainly a source that appears much later than the event it claims to verify is not to be dismissed on principle. And it cannot be accepted as fact if we can find a reasonable explanation for its lateness either. Rationalization and coherence with a hypothesis alone is not evidence.

neilgodfrey wrote:

andrewcriddle wrote: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.

This is hypothesis. We have no evidence for the supporters and opponents of Jesus existing or preserving memories about him of any kind. This is entirely a hypothetical model through which the evidence is interpreted.

wrong. Chruch fathers who claimed to have known apostles: Papias and Polycarp. A couple of others in that era such as Ignatius who don't make that claim but it is claimed of them or surmised.

Certainly a source that appears much later than the event it claims to verify is not to be dismissed on principle. And it cannot be accepted as fact if we can find a reasonable explanation for its lateness either. Rationalization and coherence with a hypothesis alone is not evidence.

[/quote]


you have no basis for dismissing their claims. they say they knew John and others. why doubt them? you have no proof otherwise.

So why aren't you a Muslim? Or a Mormon? Or, logically... Both, somehow?

Since you have to have proof otherwise in order to doubt them.

Metacrock wrote:you have no basis for dismissing their claims. they say they knew John and others. why doubt them? you have no proof otherwise.

Do you have any idea how rhetoric was used in these ancient times?

Pauls epistles are ripe.

The gospels and how they were falsely attributed to their authors was a well known use of rhetoric.

outhouse wrote:

Metacrock wrote:you have no basis for dismissing their claims. they say they knew John and others. why doubt them? you have no proof otherwise.

Do you have any idea how rhetoric was used in these ancient times?

Pauls epistles are ripe.

The gospels and how they were falsely attributed to their authors was a well known use of rhetoric.

Metacrock has already explained to you that the Gospel of Mark itself claims to be based on his personal knowledge of Peter, while the author of Matthew claims to be one of the 12 disciples.

And yet you still talk to Metacrock as though he were not a totally deluded person, and had some contact with reality.

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

What is this about "oral tradition"?

If you begin analyzing the gospels with the assumption that they could NOT have been written during Jesus' lifetime, you have made a grave error.

(All analysis based on false assumption = the blind leading the blind, and I'm standing by to push you into a ditch with one simple request: evidence. No one has the authority to impose an assumption into history in order to make analysis fit the evidence. Said another way, you can never make a case for oral tradition until an original source tells you that this method of transmission was used.)