Gospel of Luke-- eyewitnesses? The jury is still out.

[stamenflicker]

Luke’s Nativity Narratives…

Scholars note that there is a marked linguistic difference between chapters 1 and 2. After beginning in literary tone, the author of Luke switches into what W.L. Knox calls “an orgy of Hebraic Greek” Sources of the Synoptics, Book II, p. 40]. After the birth narrative, the linguistic style move into what is to be regarded as a traditional Koine style. This literary peculiarity needs an explanation. Either Luke was drawing from an older source, translating a Hebraic speaking native, making a theological point with the linguistic change in tone, or deliberately trying to throw off the reader.

The theory of an older Hebrew source for the Luke birth narrative has been widely debated by scholarly individuals. Particularly by P. Winter in ZNTW 45 (1954); HTR 48 (1955); and BJRL 37 (1954). Others include R. Laurentin in Biblica, Mcneile’s Introduction to the NT (1954); and C.C. Torrey’s The Four Gospels… just to name a few.

A second theory supposes an older Aramaic source, though that has fallen out of favor with many scholars.

Another option is that Luke freely composed his birth narrative, some evidence may suggest he drew the information from eye witness accounts, or those who knew Jesus. At worst, the material was created from oral tradition, or a gross pious fiction Luke created to imitate rabbinic Haggadists. Others merge the two theories… Benoit, NTS 3 (1957); V. Taylor’s The Gospels; Goulder and Sanderson, NTS 8 (1962).

Some argue for a Qumran source, or a connect to John the Baptist followers [which by the way R.Doubt and Gregor denied in our last debate.] This is due to a strong Semitic coloring and the notion of salvation as the fulfillment of Scripture…. Benko, JBL 86 (1967); J du Pessis’ comments in Guide to the NT (1983); Oliver NTS 10 (1963); Staffuer, Jesus and His Story (1960).

Finally, the Proto-Luke argument put forth by V. Taylor summarizing the work of the scholars Feine, Weiss, Burkitt, Stanton, Hawkins, Bartlet, Sanday, and Perry in the book Behind the Third Gospel (1926). Significantly, this theory is supported by R. Bultmann in several different places due to the passion narratives being significantly different in Luke and Mark. Luke’s passion narrative suggests that he knew some other source, living or oral tradition before he met Mark at the forming of the early church…. Caird, Hawkins, Oxford Studies, Osty, Borgen and several other sources—most notably in NTS 5, (1959); NTS 7 (1960).

Other supporting indicators for proto-Luke include the eschatological discourse, the main narrative, and Luke’s treatment of Q, which is unique, as well as the omission of much of the Mark material.

There are of course criticisms to each of these hypothesis, that’s why they call it the Synoptic Problem….

You Dr. X inappropriately put forth a Synoptic Conclusion. The fact is there isn’t one. The jury is still out. In fact, the jury is still out on the dating of the gospels… for instance A.J. Mattill argues for a date of Luke in the mid-Sixties and got it published in one your scholarly journals CBQ 40 (1978).

I eagerly await your response. Here’s a key for you:

BJRL— Bulletin of the John Rylan’s Library
CBQ— Catholic Biblical Quarterly
HTR –- Harvard Theological Review
JBL— Journal of Biblical Literature
NTS— New Testament Studies
StTh—Studia Theologica
ZNTW – Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche


Flick

[Gregor]

SFlick

What is this 'literary' goulash you have cut and pasted? You've simply parroted something you know nothing about to perhaps support some unspoken argument.

Most persuasive writing follows the following form.

State premise
Cite evidence in favor
Dispute evidence in opposition
Conclude argument with statement supporting premise

What the "H E double hockey sticks" are you doing with your post, it makes no sense?

Your title implies you will argue in favor of an eye witness author for Luke. You then cut and paste stilted references that you don't understand. You then reach no conclusion.

Try something like:

1. "The birth story in Luke can be squared with known history for 5 BCE, which was Matt's time period. Here's the evidence . . ." (You'll have a tough time)

2. "The author of Luke was in Bethelem and the author recorded the event. Here's the evidence . . ." (Really tough to prove)

3. "We have a good reason to title the book 'Luke,' because there is internal and external evidence that an apostle named Luke wrote it. Here's the evidence . . . " (You'll lose that)

Otherwise - your cut and paste irrelevancies demonstrate nothing

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

You've simply parroted something you know nothing about to perhaps support some unspoken argument.

This is too funny Gregor. When I make claims about the gospels, first I have to listen to the balking because "I don't know what I'm talking about." Then when I post sources for only one of the many discrepencies from the Doc X debate below, it's "something I know nothing about."

First of all, that's insulting. As I've mentioned to you before I have a Master's degree in Theology and can read both Greek and Hebrew. The "goulash" you've seen is about as quick of a summary as I can give from approximately 80 pages of scholarship from two sources on my bookshelf. I'm within arms reach of 6 to 8 more.

And no, not a single bit of that was cut and pasted from anywhere, no website, notta. I took about an hour out of my busy life last night to write a quick summary of a variety of positions on whether or not the Luke material-- any of it-- was taken from eye-witness accounts.

Admittedly, it's a mess, but let me summarize the "unspoken" argument. Doc X says there is no evidence that the gospels were written by contemporaries. That is not true. There is a weight of evidence pushing and pulling around the issue. Doc X mispoke when he said that the current "scholarship" acts as "proof" of a non-eyewitness authorships to the Synoptics. The matter is still being debated and will likely always be debated and "evidence" exists on both sides.

What the "H E double hockey sticks" are you doing with your post, it makes no sense?

It will make sense to X... I said I would begin a new thread.

The birth story in Luke can be squared with known history for 5 BCE, which was Matt's time period. Here's the evidence . . ." (You'll have a tough time)

That's not what this thread is about, but I'll take the wager later tonight.

The author of Luke was in Bethelem and the author recorded the event. Here's the evidence . . ." (Really tough to prove)

Ridiculous. I would never make this claim.

We have a good reason to title the book 'Luke,' because there is internal and external evidence that an apostle named Luke wrote it. Here's the evidence . . . " (You'll lose that)

The only reason why I would lose it is because Luke was not an apostle. At least not that I'm aware. However, I would argue that Luke is who he claimed to be-- a physician writing as accurate of account as possible. And no I wouldn't lose the debate. Neither would you.

You see Gregor that's just the point I'm making with this thread. There are no winners and losers in the Synoptic problem. There are theories and opinions. The scholars themselves are divided dozens of ways. My post shows that they cannot even agree on origin of the first chapter-- Hebrew? Aramaic? Proto-Luke? Q? Essenne? There is support for all of those answers-- and yes, scholarly support.

Doc X was foolish enough to say that no scholarly evidence existed for my position on the gospels. Hogwash. While I might agree with him that the weight of the evidence is shifted his direction, the jury is still out on the matter.

So does that help you? What is this thread about?

The jury is still out.
The jury is still out.
The jury is still out.

Demanding that your conclusion is somehow "proof" is foolish.

Flick

[Gregor]

To paraphrase, the title of your missive is "Luke was an eye witness."

The first line is "the birth narrative"

The body is a sloppy abstract on linguistics in the gospel.

I was complaining about the illogical ordering of your post.

[stamenflicker]

To paraphrase, the title of your missive is "Luke was an eye witness."

Wrong. I ended the eyewitness section of the title with a question mark. You paraphrased me with a period. Fundamental difference. My second phrase in the title is "jury still out." Indicating that I am not seeking to draw any conclusions with my post, short of demonstrating that a conclusion cannot be reached.

The first line is "the birth narrative"

Admittedly confusing. The remainder of the text is a very brief summary of scholarly positions regarding the first chapter of Luke. There is no consensus on even the highly controversial chapter one. In other words, in even the most significant "evidence" of a non-eye witness account is debateable.

The body is a sloppy abstract on linguistics in the gospel.

I disagree. How would like me to re-craft it

I was complaining about the illogical ordering of your post.

Point taken. I conceed. Where would like me to proceed given the information I have outlined for you?

Flick

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Gregor
To paraphrase, the title of your missive is "Luke was an eye witness."


If you'll look a little more closely, you may notice that the word Flick uses is "eyewitnesses", not "eyewitness".

The first line is "the birth narrative"

Actually, it's "Luke’s Nativity Narratives…", referring to the possible eyewitness accounts from which the Luke material may have been taken--

The body is a sloppy abstract on linguistics in the gospel.

Flick admitted that the body was "sloppy" when he referred to it as a "quick summary" and said:
Admittedly, it's a mess... *snip*

He then proceeded to cogently summarize the existing argument he was addressing.

I was complaining about the illogical ordering of your post.

Perhaps. You certainly didn't address his point, that being that the jury is still out.

[kedo1981]

Hey Flicker
How about another completely unprove-able possibility; that Luke was getting the story from someone who got the story from someone who got the story from someone who got the; well you see what I’m getting at. Could have been a retelling of a common cultural myth that had developed from the “prophecies of the old testament”.
Hard to see how the “word of God” would get passed along in such a way.

[justsaygnosis]

If memory serves Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Saul has the legendary 'vision', converts and becomes Paul, takes off into Babylonian territory and studies the Babylonian and Assyrian traditions.

So now you have a Hellenist Greek-Jew who went and studied with the Northern Semites and takes on the mission of bringing Jesus to the gentiles rather than reserve him as an exclusive Jewish messiah.

I really should have looked up the accurate data on this rather than work off the top of my head but that's what I remember from catholic school.

That leaves neither Paul nor Luke as actual 'disciples' of Jesus.

[Doctor X]

Inasmuch as many have understaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely/accurately for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, . . .

--Openning of Luke

Epeideper polloi epecheiresan anataxiasthai diagesin peri peplerophemenon en emin pragmateon, kathos paradosan emin oi ap apches autoptai kai uperetai genomenoi tou logou edoxe kamoi parekollouthekoti anothen pasin akribos kathexes soi grapsai kratiste Theophile, . . .

I would like to avoid the fallacies such as,

Doc X was foolish enough to say that no scholarly evidence existed for my position on the gospels. Hogwash.

however, I am afraid, with all due respect, recognize the appeal to knowledge unknown and personal authority and correct that a Master's degree in Theology is not the equivalent to a preparation for a career as a textual scholar who, generally, carry a doctorate and have conducted original research in the field.

Thus, allow us to dispense with such irrelevancies.

Next, that I can find a tenured professor at Harvard who believes in alien abductions does not, I think, provide, in and of itself, evidence for alien abductions.

Thus, review, then the opening. The author--popularly refer'd to as Luke without any evidence of "who" he was--rather admits he was not a witness to the events.

So much for Luke having been written by an eyewitness.

Now, Luke quotes Mk without attribution. In the list of references I do not find an argument against the Synoptic Solution [Lk used Mk; Mt used Mk; both used a "Q"--Ed.], and the Synoptic Solution allows the use of "proto" or earlier lost texts--like, gee, Q

However, since Lk follows Mk it post-dates Mk. What I have not seen here is evidence that Mk is early enough to represent an eyewitness or contemporary account and certainly none that pushed Luke earlier than roughly 120 CE.

Let me then remind our dear "Theophili" of sorts, that my contention was:

Moi: First NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written by contemporaries, let alone witnesses.[/b]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That a "Luke" or even a Mk may have used earlier sources do not make them contemporaries or eyewitnesses. The mischaracterization of the influence of the Pharisees, and Saducees in and of itself rather demonstrates the failure to appreciate the contemporary surroundings.

The Quirinius census did not require: "And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city." [Lk2.3--Ed.] This is a literary device--that does not mesh with Mt's--to get Junior to "the city of David, which is called Bethlehem."

This is, however, discussed in the scholarly references.

I cannot recreate the wheel anymore than a physicist can re-explain quantum to anyone unhappy with the implications who dismiss the sources.

Nevertheless I have provided a way to rebut this. One may write up an argument that the Synoptics--or even one of them--were written by a contemporary or a witness to the events and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

Otherwise, one is arguing only emotion and wants rather than evidence, of which I have not really the time. To put it less delicately, "put up or shut up."

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

however, I am afraid, with all due respect, recognize the appeal to knowledge unknown and personal authority and correct that a Master's degree in Theology is not the equivalent to a preparation for a career as a textual scholar who, generally, carry a doctorate and have conducted original research in the field.

Agreed. But it is quite enough to know what the scholars do and don't say. Your representation of Luke is one-sided, scholarly material is not one-sided.

Next, that I can find a tenured professor at Harvard who believes in alien abductions does not, I think, provide, in and of itself, evidence for alien abductions.

And thus your claim supports either of us. In fact, it more supports my position in that the burden of evidence is the scholars when disputing claims present in the texts themselves. Such disputation also comes after the passing of 1,500 years. Such disputation removes earlier historians and early Church fathers who were closer to the actual events. Thus just because a Harvard professor believes the Gospels were not written by those who early historians claimed they were, or that tradition has disclosed, or as in the case of Luke, who claims to have written his text based on eye-witness accounts, does not count as evidence for their positions.

So much for Luke having been written by an eyewitness.

What he does claim however is that he is in contact with the eyewitnesses and his account is an accurate reflection on their testimonies (pl.).

Now, Luke quotes Mk without attribution. In the list of references I do not find an argument against the Synoptic Solution [Lk used Mk; Mt used Mk; both used a "Q"--Ed.], and the Synoptic Solution allows the use of "proto" or earlier lost texts--like, gee, Q

Luke did use Mark, or a proto-Mark. At what point Luke used Mark is up for grabs. Some scholars theorize that Luke was already in the process of writing his gospel when he encountered Mark's gospel-- or at least a rough draft of it. I will present these details later tonight, with references if you make me (even though I've yet to see your references). If this theory is correct then Luke was writing about the same time Mark was, with Luke being finished slightly after.

We will save the Mark debate for another thread. If you feel that every argument hinges on Mark we can skip right over there.

I however feel that the Luke/Acts pair is solid enough evidence to warrant a earlier date than 120. Much earlier in fact. Your best argument is that Luke used Josephus, which would push the date back past 96AD.

What I have not seen here is evidence that Mk is early enough to represent an eyewitness or contemporary account and certainly none that pushed Luke earlier than roughly 120 CE.

May I assume you've thrown down the gauntlet?

That a "Luke" or even a Mk may have used earlier sources do not make them contemporaries or eyewitnesses.

And it also doesn't mean they were not.

The mischaracterization of the influence of the Pharisees, and Saducees in and of itself rather demonstrates the failure to appreciate the contemporary surroundings.

References? I'll pop back tonight with how much the texts demonstrate knowledge of contemporary surroundings.

I cannot recreate the wheel anymore than a physicist can re-explain quantum to anyone unhappy with the implications who dismiss the sources.

You make it sound as though there are only one set of sources. I don't dismiss the sources. The sources dismiss each other left and right.

Otherwise, one is arguing only emotion and wants rather than evidence, of which I have not really the time. To put it less delicately, "put up or shut up."

Again, my point is, and proven again, that you are completely unwilling to admit the crack in your foundation, while totally expecting the Christian world to acknowledge theirs.

Flick

[Gregor]

Let's go back to my harping, SFlick. What are you trying to argue - taken in small bites?

Are you trying to argue that "Luke" was alive in 4 BCE when Jesus was born and he heard the nativity story from a first person witness? Doubtful.

Months ago, we discussed and you conceded that "Luke" borrowed from Josephus. I cited Steve Mason, "Josephus and Luke-Acts," Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992). This puts the date no earlier than 95 CE. Undercuts the 'second person' birth idea, by dating alone.

We can also undercut it by textural analysis - no time, now.

Then you post canards like: "Luke was a doctor."

Let me quote Richard Carrier, "Luke's being a doctor is also merely a supposition. It can certainly be disputed. The physician companion of Paul may not be the author of Acts or the gospel attributed to him. . . One might argue that there is then no basis for disputing the notion that the author of Luke was a doctor, but if it were sensible to believe eveything that we have "no basis for disputing" we would have a lot of very odd beliefs. Why, by that reasoning, Alexander the Great was a sausage seller and an acrobat, and a magician on Wednesdays."

Again, I like to take arguments in small bites and consider them. The entire Luke/Acts narrative is a big bite.

[Doctor X]

Agreed. But it is quite enough to know what the scholars do and don't say.

This the individual would know if he availed himself with the scholarship. On the contrary:

Your representation of Luke is one-sided, scholarly material is not one-sided.

Ipse dixit and wrong, as indicated above. That the individual does not "like" the conclusions of scholars remains his error. I find absent in his presentation scholarly support for his position.

And thus your claim supports either of us.

No.

In fact, it more supports my position in that the burden of evidence is the scholars when disputing claims present in the texts themselves.

No, for they did. Again, that the individual does not like it remains his error.

If he were to actually consult the scholarship, he would recognize that this is just his ipse dixit when he supposes:

Thus just because a Harvard professor believes the Gospels were not written by those who early historians claimed they were, or that tradition has disclosed, or as in the case of Luke, who claims to have written his text based on eye-witness accounts, does not count as evidence for their positions.

The burden of proof remains upon him.

What he does claim however is that he is in contact with the eyewitnesses and his account is an accurate reflection on their testimonies (pl.).

No, what he states is that many others have attempted to compile narratives based on stories, "just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning. . . ."

This is a rather far cry from what the individual claims.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.


Luke did use Mark, or a proto-Mark. At what point Luke used Mark is up for grabs.

Most likely after Mk. . . .

If this theory is correct then Luke was writing about the same time Mark was, with Luke being finished slightly after.

Some familiarity with the process of writing and dissemination would help with this error. It takes time to hand copy every individual manuscript--hence "manuscript" and disseminate it.

So . . . did like Luke . . . kind of . . . sit outside Mk's office? If he had such close contact would he . . . like . . . you know . . . discuss it with him.

However, a bit of textual analysis--a secret contained in the scholarly references--demonstrates Lk rewriting Mk. It also demonstrates this with Mt.

Now, incidentally, since Mk dates after or at best around 70 CE, this would put Lk . . . let me think a moment . . . carry the two . . . divide by 13.7 . . . after 70 CE and, therefore, after eyewitnesses.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

However, Luke does not claim he has spoken with, met, or encounter'd said "eyewitnesses" as noted in the passage quoted above.

Would not a "as I have learned from Smedly, beloved horse gelder of the Lord" seem appropriate to place one's work in higher authority than rival texts like Mk? Furthermore, does not Lk--who wrote LK-Acts--try to "smooth" the disagreements betwixt Paul and the Jerusalem group? This would force Lk after Paul. Furthermore, does Lk ever encourage his Theophillus that he has spoken with or met the individuals he writes about?

No?

Quod erat demonstrandum times four.

We will save the Mark debate for another thread. If you feel that every argument hinges on Mark we can skip right over there.

To make Lk earlier than 70 CE one has to make it earlier than Mk. Period. End of discussion. Johnny, tell them about their wonderful consolation prizes.

"A year's supply of Turtle Wax! The Hermeneutical Home Game! Rice-a-Roni, that San Francisco treat!"

I however feel that the Luke/Acts pair is solid enough evidence to warrant a earlier date than 120.

"Feel" against the evidence does not an argument make, for, as conceded:

Much earlier in fact. Your best argument is that Luke used Josephus, which would push the date back past 96AD.

"Much earlier"

Quod erat demonstrandum times five.

Moi: What I have not seen here is evidence that Mk is early enough to represent an eyewitness or contemporary account and certainly none that pushed Luke earlier than roughly 120 CE.

May I assume you've thrown down the gauntlet?

I will welcome the paper. When complete I can arrange for its review.

Moi: That a "Luke" or even a Mk may have used earlier sources do not make them contemporaries or eyewitnesses.

And it also doesn't mean they were not.

Right . . . so . . . like . . . okay . . . they were . . . like . . . eyewitnesses and . . . okay . . . they needed to read from . . . eyewitnesses . . . and . . . get this . . . None of Them Indicate they Were Eyewitnesses.

I mean it is easy to mistake a hanging for an eviceration. . . .

Quod erat demonstrandum times six.

References? I'll pop back tonight with how much the texts demonstrate knowledge of contemporary surroundings.

See above. Sorry, they are "experts." One may also consider Sanders', Jesus and Judiasm, Fortress Press.

You make it sound as though there are only one set of sources. I don't dismiss the sources.

Yet:

I figured you jump right to "experts." All you done is offered a suggested interpretation of the data.

"Experts" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14733)

Again, my point is, and proven again, . . .

Perchance from the perspective of cranial internment on the sands off of the River De Nile, but not, as demonstrated, in reality.

that you are completely unwilling to admit the crack in your foundation, . . .

Should such a crack appear, I will consider it. However, for some reason, the individual is reticent to compile his evidence which so convinces him of his opinion which would provide a rather considerable "crack" in scholarly concensus.

. . . while totally expecting the Christian world to acknowledge theirs.

The individual attempt to imply that I care about the religious status of a scholar.

I care about the quality of evidence.

Period.

I wait for the paper.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

[stamenflicker]

Are you trying to argue that "Luke" was alive in 4 BCE when Jesus was born and he heard the nativity story from a first person witness? Doubtful.

Have I given even the slightest indication of such? Did the four or five issues I raised at the beginning of this thread indicate anything of the sort?

Months ago, we discussed and you conceded that "Luke" borrowed from Josephus. I cited Steve Mason, "Josephus and Luke-Acts," Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992). This puts the date no earlier than 95 CE. Undercuts the 'second person' birth idea, by dating alone.

As I recall I even posted a thread entitled, "Did Luke borrow from Josephus?" There is evidence to suggest that this happened. The reverse of this almost as feasible, that Josephus borrowed from Luke. I don't see that a "conclusion" can be reached. That's the point of this thread.

Secondly it does not undercut the second person eyewitness claim. Particularly if Luke began taking notes while interacting with the early church. There is much textual evidence to suggest this as I posted in the above thread. Again, I only took the first chapter which is your strongest argument that eyewitnesses were not involved in the crafting of Luke. Yet, even in this controversial first chapter we see a variety of ways to interpret the data-- most of which points to another source for the birth narrative. Re-read the original post for a summary of these viewpoints.

Let me quote Richard Carrier, "Luke's being a doctor is also merely a supposition. It can certainly be disputed. The physician companion of Paul may not be the author of Acts or the gospel attributed to him. . . One might argue that there is then no basis for disputing the notion that the author of Luke was a doctor, but if it were sensible to believe eveything that we have "no basis for disputing" we would have a lot of very odd beliefs. Why, by that reasoning, Alexander the Great was a sausage seller and an acrobat, and a magician on Wednesdays."

You will find few scholars who hold that the Luke of the epistles is not the author of Luke/Acts. Not only do we have the testimony of the early church fathers and the testimony of tradition (which by the way is 1,700 years closer to the event than any skeptic), we also have the stylistic pattern of the work, which is markedly more sophisticated than the other gospels-- indicating a higher level of education, and a greater familiarity with the Greek language itself. Knowing the Luke of the epistles was both Greek and educated makes it a natural fit. The burden of evidence is on those claiming he is not the true author, which is why so few hold the opinion.

As far as Alexander the Great, all I can say is WTF? Carrier is a loon. Do we have other texts supporting Alex and his sausage sales? Or other texts that name Alex the magician? Do we have early historians reporting that he was an acrobat? No? Well, then WTF? Carrier is so far in left field as to be considered a kook.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

I find absent in his presentation scholarly support for his position.

You are a joke X. An Anheuser Bush league scholar. I could have pulled from at least a dozen more scholarly journals and you'd just pop another bottle top.

That the individual does not "like" the conclusions of scholars remains his error.

I neither like nor dislike the scholarship. The fact also remains that I can summarize your position better than you can.

Let's see if I can sum up your rebuttals for the majority of my post:

No.

No, for they did. Again, that the individual does not like it remains his error.

If he were to actually consult the scholarship,

The burden of proof remains upon him.

Are you going to make any points at all? Post any references? Tell us all why you disgard the scholarship I posted? Or are you merely content to have a pissing contest?

No, what he states is that many others have attempted to compile narratives based on stories, "just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning. . . ." This is a rather far cry from what the individual claims.

First of all, I've not claimed anything, accept for the fact that nothing can be claimed with absolute certainty. Second, didn't you just make my point for me that the text is based firsthand on eyewitness accounts?

Some familiarity with the process of writing and dissemination would help with this error. It takes time to hand copy every individual manuscript--hence "manuscript" and disseminate it.

I tell you what. You give me a parchament and the writing instrument of the time and I'll copy a gospel for you in one week.

So . . . did like Luke . . . kind of . . . sit outside Mk's office? If he had such close contact would he . . . like . . . you know . . . discuss it with him.

Could you compose a cogent sentence?

However, a bit of textual analysis--a secret contained in the scholarly references--demonstrates Lk rewriting Mk. It also demonstrates this with Mt.

Oooo! A secret! While you're at it, can you uncover the secret of material unique to Luke?

Now, incidentally, since Mk dates after or at best around 70 CE,

That claim is up for grabs...

this would put Lk after 70CE

Not necessarily, but I agree it was around 70CE or slightly after in final form.

after 70 CE and, therefore, after eyewitnesses

So there were no 80 year old alive? Can you demonstrate that no one lived that long? Can you demonstrate that Luke didn't compose portions of his gospel in the 50's as a rough draft before writing it in final form?

However, Luke does not claim he has spoken with, met, or encounter'd said "eyewitnesses" as noted in the passage quoted above

That all depends on how you translate the word "delivered" doesn't it? It seems to me that he is making a direct claim that he got his information from eye-witness accounts. Explain how you translate it?

Would not a "as I have learned from Smedly, beloved horse gelder of the Lord" seem appropriate to place one's work in higher authority than rival texts like Mk? Furthermore, does not Lk--who wrote LK-Acts--try to "smooth" the disagreements betwixt Paul and the Jerusalem group? This would force Lk after Paul. Furthermore, does Lk ever encourage his Theophillus that he has spoken with or met the individuals he writes about?

Last time I checked the work was about Jesus, not Smeldy. I'm sure if he thought that there would someday come a group of people with nothing better to do than make arguments from absence, then he would have. Get real X.

To make Lk earlier than 70 CE one has to make it earlier than Mk. Period. End of discussion. Johnny, tell them about their wonderful consolation prizes.

You are completely mistaken. The jury is still out. Luke clearly used sources, are you saying that these sources, even his rough draft, or Proto Luke as it is referred to by scholars could not have existed before Luke's publication?

If I am compiling a book of eye-witness accounts of the WTC collapse and it takes me 25 years to be satisfied with it and take it to print, does that mean every interview I recorded year after year suddenly just popped into existence upon publication? Or were did they not exist all the while?

will welcome the paper. When complete I can arrange for its review.

Instead of waiting for mine, how about getting off your @ss and reading the scores that have already been written? O yeah, I forgot, you're an Anheuser Bush league scholar.

However, for some reason, the individual is reticent to compile his evidence

Well you've rambled on a bit, but have you actually said anything? That's what I'm wondering. Take the time to re-read my first post and get back to me with some scholarly debate.

Flick

[Gregor]

God, you're dense SFlick.

Don't you see your contradictions in your own posts?

(e.g. Josephus is a historian and a first person witness to what he recounts. Yet, you posit that Josephus borrowed from Luke?)

(e.g. If Luke's borrowing from Josephus, the gospel can't be earlier than 96 CE, yet you continue to post crap like: "it was around 70CE or slightly after in final form.")

You don't even understand what Carrier is saying - so you just ad hom someone whose credentials are beyond attack and move on.

You're back to your old ways of non sequiturs, "just so" stories, an illogical arguments.

As I predicted, you've made a statement, then backpeddled, backpeddled, tried confusion, and then said "the burden of proof is on you guys to disprove that there is no way that a guy we called Luke heard from an eye witness what he wrote in his two books."

Classic lite-weight apologetics

[Doctor X]

Oh my . . . appear'd to have touch'd a nerve.

Doc X,

You are a joke X.

No just a drummer. {A joke drummer.} Technically a "hack drummer." [Get on with it!--Ed.]

An Anheuser Bush league scholar.

Whilst an argumentum ad hominem I find it better than a Rolling Rock or a Corona Lite scholar.

I could have pulled from at least a dozen more scholarly journals. . . .

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Absence of this rather impeaches the claim.

. . . and you'd just pop another bottle top.

particularly when followed by a failure to address the evidence.

Quod erat demonstrandum times . . . someone remind me.

The fact also remains that I can summarize your position better than you can.

But I have Latin!

Weak attempt to commit various fallacies inorder to detract from his failure to address the topic follow.

Are you going to make any points at all?

Would recommend the individual scan above to this post and beginning reading. A dictionary will help with the more complex polysyllables.

Post any references?

When I did the individual tried to dismiss them as "'experts.'"

Tell us all why you disgard the scholarship I posted?

The individual is refered to my assessment of the quotes he posted. He is also refered to that of other posters. That we find they do not support his hopes and desires does not indicate "disregard."

Or are you merely content to have a pissing contest?

On the contrary, it is the individual who seems obsesses with long-distance micturition competitions. I must advise he consider unzipping his fly and deploying his appropriate appendage prior to further attempts.

Much less messy that way. . . .


Second, didn't you just make my point for me that the text is based firsthand on eyewitness accounts?

No. I redirect the individual to the actual passage quoted from Lk and my exegesis [Stop that.--Ed.]

I tell you what. You give me a parchament and the writing instrument of the time and I'll copy a gospel for you in one week.

They did not use parchment.

Could you compose a cogent sentence?

Approved by "Hooked on Phonics?"

Moi: However, a bit of textual analysis--a secret contained in the scholarly references--demonstrates Lk rewriting Mk. It also demonstrates this with Mt.

Flower Apparatus: Oooo! A secret! While you're at it, can you uncover the secret of material unique to Luke?

Ambulating to a library or bookstore, obtaining a reference material, opening the cover, closing the cover and turning the tome over to access the correct cover, opening it, and commencing reading may, indeed, appear an arduous task worthy of the Labors of Heracles.

I assure the individual it is not.

Moi:Now, incidentally, since Mk dates after or at best around 70 CE,

Flower Apparatus:That claim is up for grabs...

Ipse dixit of course. The original two references from the other thread cover this issue. Even the apologetic Howard Clark Kee in his Community of the New Age--which tries to argue against any Hellenic influence despite the fact the text was written in Greek. . .--argues for just before.

To claim an earlier date for the text, the individual will have to do a bit more. This would be akin to me responding to, "3 x 10 to the 8 meters per second" with, "that claim is up for grabs." Readers would like me to prove this--cite something.

Thus, once again, the individual tries to ignore scholarship and make unsubstantiated claims. Very well, I have provided an vehicle for his triumph:

Prove it.

I am happy to assist in its reception and vetting.

So there were no 80 year old alive?

With dates for Lk at about 120, it seems quite a conclusion. Nevertheless, that the writers make serious errors--particularly with dating and with customes as indicated above--they may have been 80 or even 120 years old, but they were not witnesses.

Can you demonstrate that Luke didn't compose portions of his gospel in the 50's as a rough draft before writing it in final form?

50 years later? Seems rather considerable writer's block. The text does not support this conjecture. Furthermore--here Mack and Kloppenberg's works on Q help--there is a progression of the Q material which had to happen over time. The dating of Lk does not depend on Q; it does demonstrate it is consistent. The progression of opinion explains the response texts have with the contemporary situation. Thus, the addition of a resurrection to the Mk story--he does not have it. He has an empty tomb and . . . well . . . not the same thing.

Of course, as an eyewitness Mk would just forget Junior wandering around after his death. He also would, apparently, never have heard of it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

That all depends on how you translate the word "delivered" doesn't it? It seems to me that he is making a direct claim that he got his information from eye-witness accounts. Explain how you translate it?

"Paradosan" from "paradidomi" has the understanding of "give over" or "hand over"--see Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon or the on-line Perseus project. This does not at all convey the sense of being told or directly given the information that would justify such a loose translation.

Last time I checked the work was about Jesus, not Smeldy.

"Try, dear Zirkov, to cultivate a sense of humor."

I'm sure if he thought that there would someday come a group of people with nothing better to do than make arguments from absence, then he would have. Get real X.

Rather misses the point, again. Understand the polemic hurled by the authors against the disciples, for example. Understand the "corrections" Mt and Lk maketh upon Mk--not the same incidentally.

Moi: To make Lk earlier than 70 CE one has to make it earlier than Mk. Period. End of discussion. Johnny, tell them about their wonderful consolation prizes.

Flower Apparatus:You are completely mistaken.

Ipse dixit and, since no evidence given to the contrary, wrong.

The jury is still out.

An imaginary jury perchance.

. . . are you saying that these sources, even his rough draft, or Proto Luke as it is referred to by scholars could not have existed before Luke's publication?

If the individual wishes to hold to this, then he impeaches Lk as an eyewitness. He must then impeach Mt--for they do not agree. However he may imagine "sources" that Lk "may have had" he has to provide evidence for them.

We know of one--Q

As for "proto-Lks" it depends upon what set of stories one concentrates on--such as a miracle cycle. That Lk used them does not make them any more reliable.

I remind, again, the original contention that the individual is, as another poster recognizes, trying to wriggle away from:

None of the Synoptics or Jn were written by eye-witnesses.

If I am compiling a book of eye-witness accounts of the WTC collapse and it takes me 25 years to be satisfied with it and take it to print, . . . .

One would hope he would get the date "September 11, 2001 correct."

"September 23, 2011" or "September 13, 1999" would not inspire confidence in his rendering.

The individual tries to inflate minor differences in details in historical accounts to justify the major problems with the texts. Completely different birth narratives, completely different journeys, does Judas dies, or not? If he dies, does he hang himself or does he explode?

Other posters have posted lenglthy links to the problems with the texts from an historical standpoint. That Oliphant Smeaton makes an incorrect comment concerning Gibbon does not make Lk accurate and an eyewitness.

Must I type this slower?

Incidentally, Holocaust victims have a fairly good memory for major details.

Funny that.

Instead of waiting for mine, . . .

What? Is the individual unable to back his claims? Is he afraid?

Whatever his excuse, it renders continued regard for his suppositions as just too much of a waste of time.

Until he can confront the scholarship he so despises he merely rants at the darkness. There I shall leave him.

. . .how about getting off your @ss and reading the scores that have already been written? O yeah, I forgot, you're an Anheuser Bush league scholar.

Now the poor boy degerates. He REFUSES to consult references given. I, on the other hand, humble and, of course, "measur'd in manner and speech," have [Cue sad portion of William Tell Overture.--Ed.] selflessly addressed his points, offered, without malice aforethought, with charity towards all, refereces with which he may better his station.

Thus does he aquire the title Hypocrit?

He refuses to submit his theories to the peer reviewed journals. I dislike greatly posters who blather "personal achievements," though I will note that I have done this successfully--sometimes not successfully.

Thus does he aquire the title Coward?

Shall I have to choose a color for him? I hope not. I hope he shall not add Liar to his achievements, but his rendering of other poster's words borders upon dishonesty at worse and incompetence at best.

However, for some reason, the individual is reticent to compile his evidence.

--J.D.

[Edited to remove a scribal error.--Ed.]

[stamenflicker]

My apologies. I've been without I-net for several days due to a move and subsequent provider change.

Oh my . . . appear'd to have touch'd a nerve.

Ignorance always does that to me.

Flick: I could have pulled from at least a dozen more scholarly journals. . . .

Bush League: Argumentum ad ignorantium. Absence of this rather impeaches the claim.

See below.

Weak attempt to commit various fallacies inorder to detract from his failure to address the topic follow.

Dodge it all. How about responding to what I’ve posted?

Would recommend the individual scan above to this post and beginning reading. A dictionary will help with the more complex polysyllables.

You post two or three pages of “special sauce,” I’m still looking for the beef.

When I did the individual tried to dismiss them as "'experts.'"

You totally have missed my points about the experts. The “experts” you chose to go to represent only one side of the synoptic issue. There is also legitimate evidence to the contrary, by scholars in equally reputable journals. Can you deny this claim? Don’t dodge this question.

Your argument, and probably your entire life, is extremely one-sided.

The individual is refered to my assessment of the quotes he posted. He is also refered to that of other posters. That we find they do not support his hopes and desires does not indicate "disregard."

You made no scholarly assessment. You merely pointed out that “the error remains the individual’s.” (I say in my most mocking tone.)

They did not use parchment

That’s right papyrus. You still didn’t address my point, which is that the gospels could have been re-written very quickly. I’d say 5,000 surviving fragments kind of proves that.

Ambulating to a library or bookstore, obtaining a reference material, opening the cover, closing the cover and turning the tome over to access the correct cover, opening it, and commencing reading may, indeed, appear an arduous task worthy of the Labors of Heracles.

Does this mean you are not going to provide an explanation for the material unique to Luke? This is exactly what I mean. You continually side step problems with your position and insist that I “go read a book.” It seems to me that you are the one with some reading to do.

Ipse dixit of course. The original two references from the other thread cover this issue. Even the apologetic Howard Clark Kee in his Community of the New Age--which tries to argue against any Hellenic influence despite the fact the text was written in Greek. . .--argues for just before.

There are numerous sources that suggest an Aramaic source for Mark. And that the Greek translator, most likely arranged the work into an order that suited him. The Aramaic source points to earlier authorship, just as other indicators point to later authorship. Once again Doc, the claim is not conclusive from the scholarship as you so desire it to be. Jump off your one-sided planet and pop another bottle cap.

To claim an earlier date for the text, the individual will have to do a bit more. This would be akin to me responding to, "3 x 10 to the 8 meters per second" with, "that claim is up for grabs." Readers would like me to prove this--cite something.

Are you asking me to cite something? I’d be glad to if you’d like. I think what might be more appropriate is for you to. Maybe you should renew your library card?

Thus, once again, the individual tries to ignore scholarship and make unsubstantiated claims. Very well, I have provided an vehicle for his triumph

I don’t ignore. I merely recognize any picture of it is incomplete without the other side.

Prove it.

Impossible.

With dates for Lk at about 120, it seems quite a conclusion. Nevertheless, that the writers make serious errors--particularly with dating and with customes as indicated above--they may have been 80 or even 120 years old, but they were not witnesses.

I do not accept the 120 date, furthermore I’ve seen no evidence to suggest a 120 date. I see a 95-100 date as the latest possible date. You also make the assumption that the misdating of the birth narrative is part of the original text, not part of a later redaction. My first post in this thread indicates that the language of the birth narrative is totally different than the rest of the text. This suggests another author, a copyist of another source, a redaction, or some combination of the three. Where has your argument said anything about the remaining chapters?

50 years later? Seems rather considerable writer's block. The text does not support this conjecture. Furthermore--here Mack and Kloppenberg's works on Q help--there is a progression of the Q material which had to happen over time. The dating of Lk does not depend on Q; it does demonstrate it is consistent. The progression of opinion explains the response texts have with the contemporary situation. Thus, the addition of a resurrection to the Mk story--he does not have it. He has an empty tomb and . . . well . . . not the same thing.

Mark is also missing a beginning. This more likely suggests a damaged original scroll, with both ends being worn to the point that no copyist could translate the material… also suggesting the original text of Mark was written prior to 70AD, most likely by the Mark of tradition who was dictating Peter’s sermons.
The progression of the Q material is noted below in HTS, 1999. However this to suggests a much earlier source for the Q material and thereby does nothing to push Luke’s date backward. If anything it more strongly co borates with a mid to late 70’s date.

[Of course, as an eyewitness Mk would just forget Junior wandering around after his death. He also would, apparently, never have heard of it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

And if my aunt had a… she’d be my uncle. We’re back to speculation… since we are in the world of “if” then it could have just as easily been a damaged scroll.

"Paradosan" from "paradidomi" has the understanding of "give over" or "hand over"--see Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon or the on-line Perseus project. This does not at all convey the sense of being told or directly given the information that would justify such a loose translation.

So what we have then is Luke traveling with Paul and the others in the early church, listening to the eye-witness accounts of the apostles, taking an early source Q – perhaps M (see below) and a rough draft of an undamaged Mark which contained the resurrection accounts and he begins crafting his gospel in 50-60AD. Writes a rough draft and polishes is it during the time he is traveling with the apostles and writing Acts (60-70 AD)—all without a birth narrative, which I believe to be a later insertion into the text. I’m not saying this is my absolute position on the matter, but I am saying it is at least possible under the parameters of the synoptic problem. So the Luke of tradition is “delivered,” the earliest copy of Mark and Q, or M, from which to write his own gospel. Still, eyewitness accounts recorded by a historian.

Rather misses the point, again. Understand the polemic hurled by the authors against the disciples, for example. Understand the "corrections" Mt and Lk maketh upon Mk--not the same incidentally.

While you are at it notice Luke’s milder treatment of the Jews as opposed to Mark. Why would a Greek write more favorably of the Jews than another Jew? It is because Luke was involved in the early church, which debated long and hard about “letting him in.” His account is going to be different, naturally so. It in no way reflects a “correction” that would lead us to any conclusions regarding dates. What it does reflect is the position that the Luke of tradition found himself in.

Ipse dixit and, since no evidence given to the contrary, wrong.

For evidence that Luke does not depend on the Maran priority see below.

ME . . . are you saying that these sources, even his rough draft, or Proto Luke as it is referred to by scholars could not have existed before Luke's publication?

YOU… If the individual wishes to hold to this, then he impeaches Lk as an eyewitness. He must then impeach Mt--for they do not agree. However he may imagine "sources" that Lk "may have had" he has to provide evidence for them. We know of one--Q

I disagree. If a proto-Luke does exist, then it lends credence to the notion of eye-witness accounts. The task of the textual critic then becomes working his way below the “corrections” to the original text.

As for "proto-Lks" it depends upon what set of stories one concentrates on--such as a miracle cycle. That Lk used them does not make them any more reliable.

Nor does it make them any less reliable.

None of the Synoptics or Jn were written by eye-witnesses.
Unbelievable to me that you have the gaul to again make such a claim. I will once again ask you to prove it. Your sentence should once again read “Evidence suggests that “None of the Synoptics or Jn were written by eye-witnesses.”

O yeah that’s to hard to admit in the Bush League.

One would hope he would get the date "September 11, 2001 correct.” "September 23, 2011" or "September 13, 1999" would not inspire confidence in his rendering.

In order to make this claim you MUST demonstrate that the birth narrative was part of the original text. And you cannot. Religious literature is much more subject to redaction than other works. You know this.

The individual tries to inflate minor differences in details in historical accounts to justify the major problems with the texts. Completely different birth narratives, completely different journeys, does Judas dies, or not? If he dies, does he hang himself or does he explode?

Minor stuff.

Other posters have posted lenglthy links to the problems with the texts from an historical standpoint. That Oliphant Smeaton makes an incorrect comment concerning Gibbon does not make Lk accurate and an eyewitness.

I’ve given contrary evidence. Ahh. Let’s all just cry about it. I’m content with the ambiguity. That’s where faith enters the picture. You wriggle and writhe in the ambiguity of it and transform into a FUNDI who can’t see the other side of the SCHOLARSHIP.

What? Is the individual unable to back his claims? Is he afraid?

Trembling in awe of your bottle popping skills.

Until he can confront the scholarship he so despises he merely rants at the darkness. There I shall leave him.

I don’t despise the scholarship.

Now the poor boy degerates.

Merely pointed out what is.

He REFUSES to consult references given. I, on the other hand, humble and, of course, "measur'd in manner and speech," have [Cue sad portion of William Tell Overture.--Ed.] selflessly addressed his points, offered, without malice aforethought, with charity towards all, refereces with which he may better his station.

Hmm. You need a re-read.

Thus does he aquire the title Hypocrit?

Coming from you, I’d wear it with pride.

He refuses to submit his theories to the peer reviewed journals.

Who has time for such things?

Thus does he aquire the title Coward?

Shaking… I’ve been debated by Casper.

However, for some reason, the individual is reticent to compile his evidence.

Keep reading…

Flick

[stamenflicker]

A few more things to consider. Such as theories against Marcan priority which is the bedrock of your dating position.

_____________

While Marcan priority is considered by many to be the foundation of the Synoptic problem, many scholars disagree. And their work has been published in scholarly journals. One modification of Marcan priority resides in the priority of Matthew. For a summary of this view, see T. Nicklin Gospel Gleanings; E.P. Sanders The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition; R.H. Stein The Synoptic Problem; W.R Farmer The Synoptic Problem 1976 and his review of Griesbach’s Hypothesis in NTS 23, 1977 who [Griesbach] began the notion of the removal of Q with the Mattheaen priority.

B.C. Butler The Priority of Matthew as published in ET 65 (1954). A particularly interesting notion of Butler that if the Matthaean priority is assumed, it may remove the necessity of Q. Further scholars have suggested the presence of an M source for material in Matthew as held by renowned NT scholar B.H. Streeter in The Four Gospels. This is supported by W.C. Allen Oxford Studies; Vincent Taylor The Gospels.

The idea of a fourth source is also supported by recent textual critics in noting the Coptic errors in both Luke and Matthew from the Q material. HTR has a good article on this I will post about it at a later date.

J.C. Hawkins in Oxford Studies argues the idea that “Luke did not use Mark in his travel narrative, but alternates Q with his own special material.” Pp. 29-59. D.F. Robinson suggests that Matthew and Luke could have used a shorter version of Mark, which was likely enlarged at a later date from the additional sources that were accumulating… JBL 66, 1947.

Though there is considerable weight to the notion of a Marcan priority it is by no means an open and shut case as your Bush League scholarship would lead us to believe. Once again you attempt to provide us with a synoptic conclusion, not a “synoptic problem.”

Even if Luke did use Mark, and I believe he did use it in some form, that still puts the “terminus a quo at about 70 AD,” which in no way excludes the possibility of eye-witness records, nor does it exclude the assumption of tradition that Luke was exactly who the early fathers said he was—A companion of Paul. Guthrie [NTI, 4th edition], 1990.

A comparison of Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20 demonstrates that Luke significantly expands on the prophecy of the temple which you so richly allude to in your dating of Mark. It is assumed by scholars that Luke expands on this tradition with the mention of armies because he ”knows exactly what happened” Ibid. I can except a date beyond 70AD for Luke, though the evidence is not conclusive. What this discrepancy between the two gospels does reveal is that it is less likely that Mark’s account was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. But still, those arguing that both Mark and Luke were drawing on history not prophecy must explain why so few details are offered. Why are the descriptions vague and unclear, especially in Mark? Additionally why do Mark’s words suggest the Jerusalem retreat went to the hills of Judea, when tradition tell us the people retreated to the low-lying city of Pella? Bo Reicke Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem in Studies in NT and Early Christian Literature, 1972 and S. Sowers The circumstances and recollections of the Pella flight in TZ 26, 1970.

We can continue like this for quite a long time. I have a library card and a selection of excellent reads on the synoptic problem.

Let me sum up the purpose of this thread one more time for the Anheuser Bush League.

Point #1
Dr. X erroneously stated that he could prove none of the synoptic gospels were eyewitness accounts. He cannot.

Point #2
Dr. X erroneously stated that I was not familiar with the scholarship. I know the work better than he does and agree with most of the positions held by scholars on a 70 AD or later dating of the gospels as they exist today, with redactions taking place for the next 250 years.

The fact that I agree with the dating does not a) involve conclusive evidence WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, b) exclude with any surety the report eyewitness accounts as recorded in the documents, and c) detract from the message of the documents.

Point #3
Dr. X erroneously stated that the scholarship did not include references to dates a) earlier than 70AD and b) which include the possibility of eyewitness, which has been utterly demonstrated in this thread to be FALSE.

Pop another bottle cap and respond.

ET – Expository Times
JBL – Journal of Biblical Literature
HTR – Harvard Theological Review
NTS – New Testament Theological Studies
NTI – New Testament Introduction

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

Far be it from me to ignore one so wise in the ways of gospel formation.

Josephus is a historian and a first person witness to what he recounts. Yet, you posit that Josephus borrowed from Luke

You can't prove that either one borrowed from the other. You instead immediately jump to the conclusion that Josephus is more reliable. Why? Because he's a "historian?" One who had Pharasiac leanings, despised revolutionaries, and was employed by the Romans. I'm merely pointing out that it cannot be ascertained with any certainty as to who borrowed from who.

Don't you see your contradictions in your own posts?

Of course I do. I'm capable of seeing both sides of the argument. Are you?

If Luke's borrowing from Josephus, the gospel can't be earlier than 96 CE, yet you continue to post crap like: "it was around 70CE or slightly after in final form

I think I mentioned that if Luke borrowed from Josephus it would indicate a date later than 96. Didn't I?

You don't even understand what Carrier is saying - so you just ad hom someone whose credentials are beyond attack and move on.

Classic. I just don't "understand" it. Nevermind that there is a fundamental flaw in his logic. One exposed in my post and one that you dodged. Address my response. Don't post trash about me not "understanding" him.

You're back to your old ways of non sequiturs, "just so" stories, an illogical arguments.

Perhaps you can demonstrate this?

As I predicted, you've made a statement, then backpeddled, backpeddled, tried confusion, and then said "the burden of proof is on you guys to disprove that there is no way that a guy we called Luke heard from an eye witness what he wrote in his two books."

As soon as "proof" enters the equation, you are all but lost. It cannot be proven. To assume a conclusion is to deny a host of evidence. As is the point of this thread.

Classic lite-weight apologetics

Perhaps you can address my posts?

Flick

[Yahzi]

Dr. X
degerates
Is that a typo, or are you demonstrating your vocabulary again?

You use enough obscure words that it's a legitimate question...

:D

It didn't show up in Marriam-Webster on-line, but knowing you, that doesn't mean much.

[stamenflicker]

On Josephus...

Further Use of the Commentaries...

from the site http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
________________

The speech of Agrippa II (War II, 345 ff.) has been studied thoroughly and von Domaszewski has found confirmation of the account it provides of the disposition of the Roman army.(17) Recently, is has been claimed that this text does not reflect the situation in A.D. 66 but rather that of around A.D. 75,18 which would indicate – as we would in any case have assumed – that Josephus relied on commentaries dating not only from the period of the Great War but also on later commentaries found by him in the imperial archives.

Detailed reports on the activities of the Roman army and its various units appear at several other points in Josephus' works, for instance in his description of Titus's march from Alexandria to Caesarea (War IV, 658-663), and in the listing, which bears the stamp of an actual military document, of Cestius' forces and their composition (War II, 499-503). Josephus can scarcely have invented such matters or recorded them from memory, his own or another's. But the commentaries were not the source for "great" events alone. Many of the battle annals, even their minor details, smack of military field reports. An example is the account of the physique, looks, etc., of Sabinus the Syrian soldier who scaled the wall (War VI, 54-67). It has the sound of a story told by military scribes, a tale on the basis of which medals were awarded.

Emphasis in bold is mine. If Josephus relied on earlier commentaries, a) who is to say he didn't rely on Luke, b) who is to say that he is right and Luke is wrong in their differences, and c) who is to say that they didn't rely on separate sources for the same event?

_______________

Also from the site...

Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen
accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness".(19) The index to Cohen'sbook goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers".(20) Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.(21) The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long(22) but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ."(23) Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe."(24) However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation",(25) reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data.

17 A. von Domaszewski, 'Die Dislokation des römischen Heeres im Jahre 66 n. Ch., Rheinisches Museum N.F. 47 (1892), pp. 207-218.

19 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, his Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden 1979, p. 233.

20 Idem, ibid., index s.v. Josephus (p, 276).

21 Idem, ibid., pp. 33-34.

22 Cf. O. Betz, in A. Oppenheimer - U. Rappaport - M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Perios, Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1980, p. 84 (Hebrew).

23 W. F. Albright, JOR 22 (1931-32), p. 411.
24 L. H. Vincent - A. M. Stève, Jérusalem de l'Ancien Testament I Paris 1954, p. 145, n.1.

25 Idem, ibid., p. 144, n.2.
_______________

Again bold emphasis is mine and the site if for sure worth the time of a full visit. Further, if Josephus published in 94-96AD and his work can be considered to represent eye-witness accounts of events based on other outside sources, why is the same liberty not applied to the gospels?

Flick

[Aoidoi]

I freely admit to my totally amateur status on biblical scholarship, but I do have a question for you stamenflicker: it seems like all of your sources are 1980 and earlier. I'm just wondering if that's because there isn't more recent stuff or if you're just citing those examples because they happen to be on point.

Normally I wouldn't quibble with such things, it's just that I'm well aware that Biblical scholarship was seriously frowned on for a very long time (up to about a century ago) and is still a bit... ah, touchy... as an area of research. So I'm wondering if things have changed since the time of your cites.

I'd kind of hope some advances have been made in the field in the past 20 years... :)

[Doctor X]

After such a long time the individual offers only fallaycy.

Such a surprise. . . .

Ignorance always does that to me.

Then the individual is further encouraged to avail himself of the scholarly literature. It may improve both his gnosis as well as his personality.

Dodge it all. How about responding to what I?ve posted?

See above.

Of course, I encouraged this before:

Moi: Would recommend the individual scan above to this post and beginning reading. A dictionary will help with the more complex polysyllables.

Daisy: You post two or three pages of ?special sauce,? I?m still looking for the beef.

I will recognize that as the inability to answer the rebuttal.

You totally have missed my points about the experts.

No point was made other than argumentum ad hominem.

The ?experts? you chose to go to represent only one side of the synoptic issue.

Had the individual read the scholars he would realize that represents a rather irresponsible misrepresentation of there arguments.

It is a bit like stating that every scientist the understands evolution represents only "one side" of science.

There is also legitimate evidence to the contrary, by scholars in equally reputable journals. Can you deny this claim? Don?t dodge this question.

Rather, I had awaited the individual to PROVIDE this "legitimate evidence."

Waiting. . . .

Waiting. . . .

After more than two weeks I wait in vain for this revelation, this apocalypse.

Again, I suggested the individual write-up his beliefs for publication.

He has not.

Quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

Your argument, and probably your entire life, is extremely one-sided.

Towards evidence rather than fantasy, a touch, a touch I do confess it.

NO ONE can think that I enjoy this, this clubbing of baby seals, this decimation of the wants and desires of the purposefully ignorant.

I am afraid I cannot help it if individuals cannot debate without resorting to fallacy and fantasy. If an individual would at least attempt to decorum, I could regard him with respect.

Of course, he cannot have this when the best he can offer is:

quote]Your argument, and probably your entire life, is extremely one-sided.[/quote]

Puerile and pathetic yes, but it does Not Address the Issue: The Synoptics were NOT Written by Eye-Witnesses

He may cry and whine and throw his temper-tantrum all he wishes. Until he provides a paper with support, from the texts, and, therefore, rather "put up or shut up," then I Am Forc'd as reluctant as I am to do this, Compel'd to recognize his whinings for the Foul Wind it Be.

Yet [Cue violins.--Ed.], I am willing to be proven wrong. I wait for this paper, this proof.

Elizabeth Smart came back, maybe even Saddam will disarm. Perchance miracles do happen.

To Clean Up Minor Matters:

[b[Moi:[/b]They did not use parchment

Daisy: That?s right papyrus. You still didn?t address my point, which is that the gospels could have been re-written very quickly.

Would recommend re-reading the discussion on mass-production of written documents. This includes consideration of the labor involved in rendering papyrus. The point conceded by the individual is important.

I?d say 5,000 surviving fragments kind of proves that.

The individual may "say" whatever he wishes, but it does not change that the oldest surviving papyrii is dated to about 100-120 CE--I will have to check the exact date--I be "in the office."

This minor fact is contained in the references provided. Funny how familiarity with the references will prevent such major errors in analysis.

Does this mean you are not going to provide an explanation for the material unique to Luke?

I still wait for evidence that this material--written by Lk--is "eyewitness." Rather difficult to be "eyewitness" when written so many decades after the fact and influenced by social pressures contemporary to composition.

This is exactly what I mean. You continually side step problems with your position and insist that I ?go read a book.? It seems to me that you are the one with some reading to do.

I offer enlightment and, yea, do the peasants fail to appreciate my magnificence.

As stated previously, I cannot "recreate the scholarly wheel" with an individual who simply dismisses references as from "experts" if they do not toe the line of his beliefs. Fine.

As for his final point, I have encouraged him to provide this wonderful reading and, thus far, he has rather fled from it.

There are numerous sources that suggest an Aramaic source for Mark. And that the Greek translator, . . .

Ipse dixit--provide the evidence.

The Aramaic source points to earlier authorship, just as other indicators point to later authorship.

Ipse dixit again. It should not at all disuade the individual that he has Provided No Evidence for This.

Answering fallacy becomes tedious.

I do not accept the 120 date, . . .

Scholarly journals await his revelation.

No?

You also make the assumption that the misdating of the birth narrative is part of the original text, not part of a later redaction.

Other than it serves the purpose of the work as a whole.

Mark is also missing a beginning.

Ipse dixit.

Sing it with me: "We Await the Scholarly Paper!"

So what we have then is Luke traveling with Paul and the others in the early church, . . .

Which is, of course, why his account differs from Paul's in Gallilations . . . Galalalations . . . One of his Letters.

This is too easy. . . .

As stated, either the individual can Produce evidence, submit it to peer review, or he merely has another tantrum.

Various tantrums follow that do not require the attention of gentlemen.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Yahtzi:

A perfectly cromulent word.

Indeed, when I have this "material" to deal with:

"Hachime!!"

Point #1
Dr. X erroneously stated that he could prove none of the synoptic gospels were eyewitness accounts. He cannot.

I refer the now LIAR to the original statement refer'd to above, again. I stated that they were not. This is the concensus of scholarship for a rather long time. If he does not "like" it, he should rebut it.

He has not.

"Ippon!"

Point for Moi.

Point #2
Dr. X erroneously stated that I was not familiar with the scholarship.

When the individual answers only with misrepresentation of the scholarship, dismissal of any who disagree as "experts" and general beastliness of behavior witness on some of the less-exclusive playgrounds, he convicts himself.

"Wazari!"

Half-Point for Moi.

For he concedes--fallacy deleted--". . . and agree with most of the positions held by scholars on a 70 AD or later dating of the gospels as they exist today, with redactions taking place for the next 250 years."

Should be at least a "half-point"--Judges?

"Ippon!!!"

Fine, "full-point," but I know the judge. . . .

Then again. . . .

The fact that I agree with the dating does not a) involve conclusive evidence WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. . . .

Let us see, he concedes that they were written far after the fact which means the authors could not be eye-witnesses. That is at least a "wazari!"

"Wazari!!"

Half-Point for Moi.

b) exclude with any surety the report eyewitness accounts as recorded in the documents, . . .

With no evidence cited for this--mere supposition--not to mention the . . . sorry to refer to the scholarship again--ways in which the Synoptics address contemporary issues--the late date.

. . . and c) detract from the message of the documents.

Ah . . . yes . . . "the message." What would that be?

That people cannot learn the message and be saved?

That Junior, the writers, and the disciples would not know a Jew if one masticated their posteriors?

That none can tell time--or dates?

"Ippon!"

Fine, full-point for Moi.

Point #3
Dr. X erroneously stated that the scholarship did not include references to dates a) earlier than 70AD and b) which include the possibility of eyewitness, which has been utterly demonstrated in this thread to be FALSE.

If an individual wishes to LIE about my words he will end this with a disqualification--the judges have little patience for dishonorable conduct. At best he would lose a point; however, he has no points to spare.

To avoid such an unsatifactory conclusion--for I try to treat opponents with respect whether or not they merit it, I will wave it off and note that he has already conceded the point of the late dates and his FAILURE to demonstrate early enough material. That a text "may" contain sentences or quotes that "may be," you know, "just possibly" contemporary--after all of that time of passage--to the period does not make them "eye-witnesses" and, certainly, does not make the authors of the Synoptics eye-witnesses.

Four full-points to me . . . I win the match with a point to spare.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

I'm just wondering if that's because there isn't more recent stuff or if you're just citing those examples because they happen to be on point.

There are more current things available. The selection I've chosen represents part of my personal library, which is admittedly dated. I've been out of school over 10 years now.

What you will find, and I'd be happy to research it for you, is that the past 20 years has produced more of the same-- in fact, it's even strengthened these more conservative approaches.

What I need is my UT, Knoxville on-line journal subscription back. I suppose I'll have to register for another class. :)

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Dr. X,

I will recognize that as the inability to answer the rebuttal.

Give me something to rebutt that I haven't already. It's really hard to rebutt things like, "The error remains the individual's," or "If the individual would consult the scholarship." Do try and make a point.

Had the individual read the scholars he would realize that represents a rather irresponsible misrepresentation of there arguments.

Excuse me? Are you saying these authors were not demonstrating evidence of an earlier date or source? Are you saying they deliberately are trying to throw off such naive readers as myself? Are you claiming that no such scholarly paper supports my claim that your synoptic conclusion is one-sided?

It is a bit like stating that every scientist the understands evolution represents only "one side" of science.

It's completely different. We have a fossil record that overwhelmingly supports the theory. We do not have a textual record with such a demonstrated track record. We have opposing opinions on the synoptic problem, each with substantial claims to "truth."

When the individual answers only with misrepresentation of the scholarship, dismissal of any who disagree as "experts" and general beastliness of behavior witness on some of the less-exclusive playgrounds, he convicts himself.

Can you demonstrate my misrepresentations? It is far greater a misrepresentation to present half an argument, which you have done here.

Again, I suggested the individual write-up his beliefs for publication.

Why? So you can read the title, disagree and throw it out? You can't even address the scholarship I've posted here, why would you look at yet another piece of it?

Let us see, he concedes that they were written far after the fact which means the authors could not be eye-witnesses.

I in no way conceed such nonsense. Do I deem it a possiblity? Sure. A probability? Maybe, but unlikely. A fact? Absolutely not.

Puerile and pathetic yes, but it does Not Address the Issue: The Synoptics were NOT Written by Eye-Witnesses

Does it occur to you that to make such a claim in the face of scholarly research demands you support it? Or should I just argue both of our sides since you seem incapable?

Would recommend re-reading the discussion on mass-production of written documents. This includes consideration of the labor involved in rendering papyrus. The point conceded by the individual is important.

So not only did Luke have to transcribe quickly, he now had to make his own paper? I suppose no one made papyrus in that day so everyone had to make their own? He couldn't pass the offering plate around and buy his own?

More it a bit... there's a knock at the door...

Flick

[stamenflicker]

My apologies...

Which is, of course, why his account differs from Paul's in Gallilations . . . Galalalations . . . One of his Letters.

Yes. There is a difference there. This difference further demonstrates my position as noted by scholars that Luke was not familiar with the epistle. This unfamiliarity leads us to an eariler dating of Luke, not a later one. By insisting that "Luke" is not an individual writing from his own recollections is ludicrious given the obvious error. Anyone "crafting" a gospel in the early 100's just for the hell of it would have noticed this issue.

Mistakes point us away from redaction and toward originality.

refer the now LIAR to the original statement refer'd to above, again. I stated that they were not. This is the concensus of scholarship for a rather long time. If he does not "like" it, he should rebut it.

The true "LIAR" is one that insists there is a consensus of scholarship, as I have demonstrated.

For he concedes

My concession is one of opinion, not fact. Your position is one of opinion, not fact. WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. At some point maybe you'll be man enough to fess up to your little boo-boo in claiming that you can prove your statement is beyond the reproach of scholarship.

With no evidence cited for this--mere supposition--not to mention the . . . sorry to refer to the scholarship again--ways in which the Synoptics address contemporary issues--the late date.

Evidence? Haven't I said all that evidence exist on both sides? Have I not proven such?

Flick

[Mike B.]

Sorry you guys are ahead of me dramatically...

If Luke used Q and put it in a more primative form than Matthew, can't we say Luke has the best chance of having accounts from eyewitnesses?

Interestingly, Paul in the 50s in 1 Corinthians makes a comment about the Lord ordering men who preach the gospel to live by it (9:14). He also talks about divorce using the "Lord's" advice (7:10). Are not both of these things in Q?

Since Paul spent 15 days with Cephas or Peter shortly after the crucifixtion, could he have got the preachings of Jesus from him? Does that lend further creedence that stuff in Q has the best chance of being historical, and since Luke used Q in its primative form, make Luke possibly the most accurate?

BTW no reconstruction of the birth narratives is in Q. Since Matthew and Luke are so contradictory on this point.

[Gregor]

Hello students.

Welcome to SFlick's school of ass-backward textural apologetics.

OK class - we are now to explain the difference between Acts and Galatians and use that to date the gospel of Luke/Acts. Ok, everyone, get out your paper and pens.

Point 1: Paul's letter to the church in Galatia was written in, say 55 CE.

Point 2: We accept Paul as the author of Galatians.

Point 3: Galatians and Acts contradict themselves in relation to Paul's conversion, his travels, etc.

Point 4: We don't know the author of Luke/Acts.

Point 5: Someone in 300 CE decided to attribute it to someone named Luke.

Point 6: Paul speaks of a traveling companion named Luke.

Problem: How do we treat the difference between a roughly contemporaneous writing by Paul in Galatians and an undated, third-hand writing by some mystery person that we've decided to call Luke?

[Cue drum roll] The patented SFlick ass-backwards conclusion:

- - - - -
"This difference further demonstrates my position as noted by scholars that Luke was not familiar with the epistle. This unfamiliarity leads us to an eariler [sic] dating of Luke, not a later one."
- - - - -

EUREKA! We have found it, class! This unknown, anonymous author wrote his (i) third-person (ii) hand-me-down account of Paul's conversion EARILER (woops, we mean EARLIER) that Paul wrote his story of his own conversion! That's what we here at the "SFlick School of Scholar-less Scholarly Apologetics, Textural Analysis And Bottle Washing" conclude.

- - - - - - - - - - -

All camp aside, in a nutshell, SFlick has demonstrated in one comment why no one should accept anything he writes on Biblical topics. Consider (everyone other than SFlick) the following:

1. Paul writes earlier than any of the gospels.
2. Paul never met Jesus
3. Paul never included in his letters the window dressing of Jesus' life - the virgin birth, the miracle stories, etc.
4. Paul didn't write about the Q-sayings of Jesus
5. Paul was learning about Jesus years after Jesus' death.

The conclusion that reasonable scholars reach about when was Xianity becoming orthodox is that Q sayings were being exchanged orally and were disparate in 50-80 CE. Myths about Jesus' birth, life, and works were not definite in 60 CE - they were in a state of flux. The earliest gospel framents were from 120-150 CE and later. The 'just as ancient' Gospel of Thomas, Hermas scroll, didache, and others show competing stories and themes of Jesus.

The idea that Luke/Acts conflicts with Paul idicate an EARLIER dating of Acts over Paul may be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Consider this: (i) something happened to you, personally. (ii) you described it to someone in a letter several years later. (iii) we find a document that was clearly written after your death, talks about event that occured after your death, and is dated to 75 years after your letter. Plus, this is an anonymous account of what you had written in your letter, but the details were significantly different. And we conclude that this anonymous, inaccurate account from someone who was not with you to be more accurate and written earlier than your account?

Or rather, do we conclude that this other document was written long after you wrote your letter, and the author recalled your letter being read aloud in church years previously, and the mystery author recounts it and gets some of it wrong.

[Gregor]

Paul wasn't with Peter "shortly after the crucifixion."

Off the top of my head I think it was 15+ years after the crucifixion that Paul converts. And he spends his time fighting with Peter and James.

[Mike B.]

Gregor this is from Galations which I think we can say is an authentic Pauline letter written in the 50sCE:

"1:17neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles
before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. 1:18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,
and tarried with him fifteen days. "

Cephas = Peter

Timelines I have seen always have crucifixtion in 30CE and Paul's conversion in c36CE

My point was not that Paul had Q in front of him. It was not in written form. However, since Paul does mention two things that are in Q, I am assuming he got them from Cephas which is a good check on the accuracy of Q.

Since Q is in Luke in its more primative form, I am wondering if we can say that it has a better chance of having "earwitness" rememberance of things than other gospels.

As far as the infancy narratives, forget it they are clearly mythical.

[Gregor]

Mike
Thanks for the reply.

I agree that sayings about Jesus were by necessity being actively discussed in the early Xian community in 40-50 CE. That's pretty much all that was communicated about Jesus at that time. We know this because all Paul talks about is some general sayings, a eucharist reference (that is clearly different than the gospels), and Christ crucified and resurrected. However, he does not follow much of "Q"

Scholars think that Q was in some written form so that Matt and Luke could both follow it when they're writing in 95-125 CE.

Now, since 'Q' is presumed to have no birth narrative or resurrection narrative, it can't help us with these questions.

[Doctor X]

Gregor performs a rather thorough job in addressing the individual's difficulties with Lk-Acts and the Pauline Letter. [He still cannot spell "Galations."--Ed.]

Give me something to rebutt that I haven't already.

The individual is directed to his failure to demonstrate that the Synoptics were written by eye-witnesses.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It's really hard to rebutt things like, "The error remains the individual's," or "If the individual would consult the scholarship."

As stated, I cannot be expected to recreate the wheel simply because someone is "unhappy" with automobiles. [Stop that.--Ed.] References were given.

The individual made a claim which he has yet to support. That the claim overturns scholarship will lead to skepticism on the part of readers with some familiarity with the scholarship.

Do try and make a point.

It seems I rather have. The individual failed in his claim.

Johnny . . . tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes!

Unless . . . of course . . . the individual has his scholarly paper ready. He may PM me for assistance in its consideration.

Excuse me? Are you saying these authors were not demonstrating evidence of an earlier date or source?

They do not demonstrate nor do they support that the Synoptics were written by eye-witnesses.

Period.

Are you saying they deliberately are trying to throw off such naive readers as myself?

I will not speculate on the motivations of scholars at this point. Nevertheless, that a writer "may have" had access to an earlier source which "may be" like really early does not make the writer an eyewitness.

I remain uncertain how much clearer to make this. That the "earlier" material has a history of development--Q if you believe Kloppenberg and Mack, for example--further detracts from the concept of "eyewitness."

Are you claiming that no such scholarly paper supports my claim that your synoptic conclusion is one-sided?

The individual has yet to demonstrate that the writers of the Synoptics were eyewitnesses.

We do not have a textual record with such a demonstrated track record.

Actually, no in that we have texts which indicate a great deal about the social issues they responded to. Certainly we have no "autograph" text one can point to, nor do we have much in the way of external evidence that supports the stories.

We do have external evidence against some of the stories--mischaracterization of Jewish ritual for example--as well as similar motifs--Apollonius of Tyre if I render his name correctly.

We have opposing opinions on the synoptic problem, each with substantial claims to "truth."

As we have claims that JFK was assassinated by the FBI in conjunction with the CIA with funding from Star Fleet Command. It is the quality of the contention that matters. With regards to the "anti-Synoptic" theorists, they have yet to answer the many problems their contentions lead to--for example, evidence of Mt and Lk using Mk. It is hard to make Mk "later" when he is used as a source!

Can you demonstrate my misrepresentations?

The individual wishes the Synoptic writers to prove eyewitnesses. The scholarship has not--as, frankly other posters have demonstrated to him--supported him.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Must I cut and paste every grand unsubstantiated claim the individual has made?

It is far greater a misrepresentation to present half an argument, which you have done here.

The individual remains unhappy his contention has failed. Again, if he has the "other half" of this argument, he is welcome to present it. Thus far, he has not.

Moi: Again, I suggested the individual write-up his beliefs for publication.

Why? So you can read the title, disagree and throw it out? You can't even address the scholarship I've posted here, why would you look at yet another piece of it?

Now the individual ducks. I can assure him that not only will his paper receive peer review it will not receive it from me. Sure, I suppose I may disagree with the paper and even attempt to criticise it. However, should it pass peer review it would then become my responsibility to present a rebuttal that can pass peer review.

I do recommend that should the individual do this and the reviewers do not reject his paper but present him with a number of criticisms, he should not attempt to answer them by claiming that they do not "address the scholarship."

Moi: Let us see, he concedes that they were written far after the fact which means the authors could not be eye-witnesses.

I in no way conceed such nonsense. Do I deem it a possiblity? Sure. A probability? Maybe, but unlikely. A fact? Absolutely not.

Such wriggling proves unseemly. Again, I await evidence to the contrary.

Does it occur to you that to make such a claim in the face of scholarly research demands you support it? Or should I just argue both of our sides since you seem incapable?

The individual has been given the resources. I have also outlined some of the major points. That he can only whine about them and refuse to consider them remains his error.

So not only did Luke have to transcribe quickly, he now had to make his own paper?

Someone did and someone had to provide the funds. Someones would have to deem a document sufficiently important to merit salvage and dispersal. Both take time.

I remain uncertain who the individual's sarcasm supports his belief that the Synoptics could have been written by eyewitnesses.

There is a difference there. This difference further demonstrates my position as noted by scholars that Luke was not familiar with the epistle.

Yet he knew Paul. Yet he did not bother to get the basic details correct on this relatively early event.

This unfamiliarity leads us to an eariler dating of Luke, not a later one.

Not at all.

By insisting that "Luke" is not an individual writing from his own recollections is ludicrious given the obvious error.

Sure. . . .

Anyone "crafting" a gospel in the early 100's just for the hell of it would have noticed this issue.

Not if he did not expect contradiction and, certainly, not if he expected anyone to care about contradictions. He had a point to make--he appears to "smooth" or try to smooth out the differences between Paul and Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem group. This rather argues for a later date, incidentally, since it would be late enough for the problems to become significant, known, and potentially eased by rewriting history.

This is a bit like Jn's over subordination of J the B to Junior. Reality? It is not a major issue for Mk, certainly, or the other Synoptic writers. It is for Jn. Did he have to address or respond to criticisms, traditions, or what-have-ye from a J the B group?

Mistakes point us away from redaction and toward originality.

This is a severe misrepresentation of scholarship. Mistakes point toward redaction. This is a basic point of textual criticism, incidentally.

The true "LIAR" is one that insists there is a consensus of scholarship, as I have demonstrated.

The individual misrepresents scholarship and willfully misrepresents the statements of posters. The charge of Liar stands unless he wishes to plead ignorance or insanity.

My concession is one of opinion, not fact. Your position is one of opinion, not fact. WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. At some point maybe you'll be man enough to fess up to your little boo-boo in claiming that you can prove your statement is beyond the reproach of scholarship.

Should I create a "boo-boo"--such a singular wit--I will confess it--such as a congenital inability to spell complex words such as "deity" and "Galatians." With regards to the claim that eyewitnesses did not write the Synoptic works it stands firm.

Should the individual have information that provides credible "doubt" then he is free to present it. One would hope he would do this soon since his prevarications and attempts to out-maneuver himself wastes time that could be more productively spend descerning whether or not MuscleMan has masters the release mechanism on his "caps lock."

Evidence? Haven't I said all that evidence exist on both sides?

"Said," yes. Demonstrated, revealed, supported, no.

Have I not proven such?

See above.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

OK class - we are now to explain the difference between Acts and Galatians and use that to date the gospel of Luke/Acts. Ok, everyone, get out your paper and pens.

Why don't we instead pick up other scholarly papers published in respectable journals on the topic? Get out your pens and paper and accept scholarship beyond the capability of most of us.

Paul's letter to the church in Galatia was written in, say 55 CE.

Agreed.

We accept Paul as the author of Galatians.

Agreed.

Galatians and Acts contradict themselves in relation to Paul's conversion, his travels, etc.

With the exception of the actual number of trips to Jerusalem, the differences are very minor.

We don't know the author of Luke/Acts.

Agreed. But we have good proof that it was the Luke of the Epistles. Beyond the testimony of early church fathers who affirm the Luke of tradition, we don't have any good reasons to assume it someone else.

Someone in 300 CE decided to attribute it to someone named Luke.

Wrong. According to that source, Papias in 120 AD ascribed the gospel to him.

Paul speaks of a traveling companion named Luke.

True.

How do we treat the difference between a roughly contemporaneous writing by Paul in Galatians and an undated, third-hand writing by some mystery person that we've decided to call Luke?

The traveling companion and author of the gospel was unaware of the letter. In mass form, ie. 300 CE he would be familiar with it.

This unknown, anonymous author wrote his (i) third-person (ii) hand-me-down account of Paul's conversion EARILER (woops, we mean EARLIER) that Paul wrote his story of his own conversion!

This unknown, though assumed author wrote his first person account of earlier, or later than Paul's letter, either way he was unfamiliar with Paul's version of the story and quite possibly the number of times Paul went to Jersualem. As contemporaries, this makes sense. Divided by 200 years, this makes no sense. Can you offer an alternative?

All camp aside, in a nutshell, SFlick has demonstrated in one comment why no one should accept anything he writes on Biblical topics.

Too funny. I've yet to see you back a claim.

Paul writes earlier than any of the gospels.

Prove it.

Paul didn't write about the Q-sayings of Jesus

Wrong.

The conclusion that reasonable scholars reach about when was Xianity becoming orthodox is that Q sayings were being exchanged orally and were disparate in 50-80 CE. Myths about Jesus' birth, life, and works were not definite in 60 CE - they were in a state of flux. The earliest gospel framents were from 120-150 CE and later.

Prove it. You admit Q was floating around during the time of Paul yet we don't have one single shred of Q evidence in papyrus. There's no reason to assume then that the absence of gospel evidence points us beyond the first century.

The idea that Luke/Acts conflicts with Paul idicate an EARLIER dating of Acts over Paul may be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Consider this: (i) something happened to you, personally. (ii) you described it to someone in a letter several years later. (iii) we find a document that was clearly written after your death, talks about event that occured after your death, and is dated to 75 years after your letter. Plus, this is an anonymous account of what you had written in your letter, but the details were significantly different. And we conclude that this anonymous, inaccurate account from someone who was not with you to be more accurate and written earlier than your account?

Because you are Fundi. You can't back up a single claim in this paragraph. 75 years later? Prove it. Two accounts happening simultaneously that happen to disagree. I suppose that NEVER happens.

Gregor stop proving your ignorance. Support your claims. Dispute mine. Draw on scholarly reports. Stop the FUNDI talk.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Dr. X,

The individual is directed to his failure to demonstrate that the Synoptics were written by eye-witnesses.

Did I ever claim such? Or did I not say there was an equal body of evidence supporting it? There's a huge difference. I'm open to the alternate side of the argument, whereas you, FUNDI atheist, are not. You are a worse Fundamentalist than most Christians I know.

As stated, I cannot be expected to recreate the wheel simply because someone is "unhappy" with automobiles.

O yeah, you can drive one as long as it is built for you, but you have no clue as to how it works.

The individual made a claim which he has yet to support.

My only claim in this thread is that you can't prove they were not eyewitnesses. Your daftness on this issue is amazing.

Such wriggling proves unseemly. Again, I await evidence to the contrary.

You have a whole thread of it FUNDI.

RE: the time taken to copy a gospel:
Someone did and someone had to provide the funds. Someones would have to deem a document sufficiently important to merit salvage and dispersal. Both take time.

So you must now prove that the amount of time was decades as opposed to weeks. Put up or shut up.

Yet he knew Paul. Yet he did not bother to get the basic details correct on this relatively early event.

I suppose he should have emailed him. Or jumped in his Dodge Caravan and got the story straight. Give me a break Fundi.

Gregor performs a rather thorough job in addressing the individual's difficulties with Lk-Acts and the Pauline Letter.

Gregor dressed up a brain fart and posted it.

Unless . . . of course . . . the individual has his scholarly paper ready. He may PM me for assistance in its consideration.

Once again, you need to give me a good reason to publish one since you don't read what's out there. The scholarship is outside your box isn't it Fundi?

The individual made a claim which he has yet to support. That the claim overturns scholarship will lead to skepticism on the part of readers with some familiarity with the scholarship.

The scholarship is divided. Maybe if you said it with me a few times it could enter that Fudni brain of yours.

The scholarship is divided.
The scholarship is divided.
The scholarship is divided.
The scholarship is divided.
The scholarship is divided.

There. Feel better now?

They do not demonstrate nor do they support that the Synoptics were written by eye-witnesses.

Nor do they refuse to support the claim. Can you possibly refute this? Please do and demonstrate your ignorance.

We do have external evidence against some of the stories--mischaracterization of Jewish ritual for example--as well as similar motifs--Apollonius of Tyre if I render his name correctly.

The same claims are made continuously of Josephus.

Must I cut and paste every grand unsubstantiated claim the individual has made?

Why don't you start with one?

It is hard to make Mk "later" when he is used as a source!

That the individual does not like the suppositions of scholarship is the problem of the individuals. I cannot help those who cannot learn.

Again, if he has the "other half" of this argument, he is welcome to present it. Thus far, he has not.

Take off the Fundi glasses and read my posts.

remain uncertain how much clearer to make this. That the "earlier" material has a history of development--Q if you believe Kloppenberg and Mack, for example--further detracts from the concept of "eyewitness."

I will post on this later, along with Aramiac sources for Mark which the Fundi individual believes I cannot do.

I can assure him that not only will his paper receive peer review it will not receive it from me. Sure, I suppose I may disagree with the paper and even attempt to criticise it. However, should it pass peer review it would then become my responsibility to present a rebuttal that can pass peer review.

I tell you what. You post a review of any source I've outlined for you and I'll write the paper this summer when school is out. Pick one, write a review, get it published, and I'll write mine. O wait, that means you might actually have to read some scholarship.

Not if he did not expect contradiction and, certainly, not if he expected anyone to care about contradictions. He had a point to make--he appears to "smooth" or try to smooth out the differences between Paul and Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem group. This rather argues for a later date, incidentally, since it would be late enough for the problems to become significant, known, and potentially eased by rewriting history

All that "effort" to smooth things over. All that careful and planned crafty disception and he misses something as simple as a trip to Jersualem? Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

This is a severe misrepresentation of scholarship. Mistakes point toward redaction. This is a basic point of textual criticism, incidentally.

Mistranslated verbs, extrapoloated pronouns, and mis-used tenses regarding verbs of being might point to a redaction, but certainly not misplaced details, incorrect dates, and journey records. Can you deny this claim?

The individual misrepresents scholarship and willfully misrepresents the statements of posters. The charge of Liar stands unless he wishes to plead ignorance or insanity.

Did you or did you not say you could prove none of the gospels were written by contemporaries?

With regards to the claim that eyewitnesses did not write the Synoptic works it stands firm.

Whose the Liar now?

Should the individual have information that provides credible "doubt" then he is free to present it.

And the point would be? Your reading comprehension skills are obviously lacking. A tendency so common in the Anheuser Bush League of scholars.


Flick

[Doctor X]

Oh my . . . such fallacies. . . .

To save some time:

Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum
Non sequitur
Poisoning the Well

Should about cover it.

Right . . . now to the particulars:


Did I ever claim such? Or did I not say there was an equal body of evidence supporting it? There's a huge difference.

Not really since both contentions prove wrong. Now, again, with some redundancy in my repetition, the individual is free to construct the well-reason'd paper supporting this.

Thus far, he has not. He has not demonstrated support for his belief.

. . . whereas you, FUNDI atheist, are not. You are a worse Fundamentalist than most Christians I know.

Would the individual be happier if I started addressing him as a "FUNDI Christian" or "FUNDI Deist?"

Gentlemen don't call each other NAMES Withers, so, to spare me the STIGMA of being forced to conduct myself in an ungentlemanly fashion perhaps you would be so good as to think of an APPROPRIATE name for yourSELF!

Rather, the history of "fundamentalism" proves quite appropriate. The twelve "fundamentals" arose as a response to hermeneutics. One of them simply stated that the Bible was "inerrant." Period.

This intentional cranial internment in the sand of fear rather describes the individual.

O (sic) yeah, you can drive one as long as it is built for you, but you have no clue as to how it works.

His emotions unbalance him and results in the failure as a rejoiner.

My only claim in this thread is that you can't prove they were not eyewitnesses. Your daftness on this issue is amazing.

To one who sees only the darkness of the sands of the River De Nile perhaps. Nevertheless, the individual has FAILED to provide evidence for his belief. He has tried to dismiss the scholarly evidence--those pesky "experts."

That he appears humorously pathetic with his posterior dangerously exposed remains his own error.

So you must now prove that the amount of time was decades as opposed to weeks. Put up or shut up.

The individual is directed to obtain papyrus, the proper writing materials of the time, and start composition--correcting any mistakes, of course.

He may then walk to his neighbor.

As soon as I receive a copy of his work, I will let him know.

Ridiculous. The problem is his grousing does NOT support his attempts to make the Synoptics written by eye-witnesses.

Now this collection of fallacies is rather unfortunate since it demonstrates the weakness of his position:

I suppose he should have emailed him. Or jumped in his Dodge Caravan and got the story straight. Give me a break Fundi.

Indeed, he had neither. Bottom line is he was not there; he was not an eye-witness.

Various fallacy ladden tantrums follow which, sadly, lack any wit.

Once again, you need to give me a good reason to publish one since you don't read what's out there. The scholarship is outside your box isn't it Fundi?

Notice how the individual tries to avoid the charge of fundamentalism by applying it to those who do not hold such. I remind the Readership that the individual HIMSELF Refus'd to read or consider the sources offered.

Basically, he cannot support his postion. I made the offer sincerely, and it stands. I am afraid until he acts upon it, I cannot take him seriously.

Incidentally, repeating "the scholarship is divided" does not make it any more so than "back and to the left" disproves Luis Alvarez. [Obscure reference to JFK balistics.--Ed.]

The same claims are made continuously of Josephus.

More fallacy follows with some blubbering. . . .

I will post on this later, along with Aramiac sources for Mark which the Fundi individual believes I cannot do.

Interesting, the individual now claims he is a mind reader. Perchance the Randi Prize will fall!!

However, that Mark used "Aramaic sources" rather demonstrates he was not an eyewitness and his later readers--Mk and Lk--were neither.

I must thank the individual for arguing my point so effectively.

I tell you what. You post a review of any source I've outlined for you and I'll write the paper this summer when school is out. Pick one, write a review, get it published, and I'll write mine. O wait, that means you might actually have to read some scholarship.

I see, suddenly the individual cannot back his claims? Now I am willing to understand the limitation with time, though I will note the individual seems to have sufficient time to blather over an internet page.

The references he has mentioned Do Not support his belief. Many of them have already received review--give me some time and I can try to post some of them--at the "office" currently. I am not certain what purpose a review of sources he misrepresents serves.

Nevertheless, with a higher-speed connection, I will see what I can do.

Of course, this WILL render him obligued to write his paper in support that the Synoptics were composed by eye-witnesses.

All that "effort" to smooth things over. All that careful and planned crafty disception and he misses something as simple as a trip to Jersualem? Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

Since the individual has produced what I am shoveling away for the benefit of the Readership, I imagine he is intimate with its redulence. He should consider better toilet habits . . . or even a better diet.

Now, the individual misrepresents the point. Lk did not expect to be contradicted. He did not "miss" that which he did not witness.

Again, I must thank the individual for so well making my point.

Mistranslated verbs, extrapoloated pronouns, and mis-used tenses regarding verbs of being might point to a redaction, but certainly not misplaced details, incorrect dates, and journey records. Can you deny this claim?

If the claim was a legitimate representation of the problems of textual criticism it might prove relevant. Nevertheless, the problems more accurately include major changes, changes based on theology, for example. Indeed, one can find some with regards to Mt and Lk rewritting Mk--note their "softening" of what happens to Junior after his baptism.

Did you or did you not say you could prove none of the gospels were written by contemporaries?

Did I or did I not provide the basic references which the individual dismisses unread and unregarded as being the product of mere "experts?"

Whose the Liar now?

The individual for "all other titles thou hast given away."

Moi: Should the individual have information that provides credible "doubt" then he is free to present it.

And the point would be? Your reading comprehension . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah . . . rant . . . rant . . . fallacy . . . fallacy . . . whine . . . blubber . . . bowl of porridge . . . blah . . . blah. . . .

I would think the opportunity for the individual to contribute something as original as demonstrating the Synoptics were possibly written by eyewitnesses would prove quite apt.

Apparently not. . . .

Alas.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

[stamenflicker]

Not really since both contentions prove wrong.

The error remains the individuals.

Now, again, with some redundancy in my repetition, the individual is free to construct the well-reason'd paper supporting this.

I have no reason to re-create the will. That the individual does not like the scholarship is the problem of the individuals.

Thus far, he has not. He has not demonstrated support for his belief.

The individual has offered no evidence disproving the posted writings of various scholars. That the individual does not like the scholarship, I cannot help those who cannot learn.

Nevertheless, the individual has FAILED to provide evidence for his belief. He has tried to dismiss the scholarly evidence--those pesky "experts."

The scholarly evidence is not dismissed, rather it is demonstrated to be "theoretical" and subject to alternative views on both sides of the argument, that the individual does not like contrary evidence to his fundamentalist position on the issue is the problem of the individuals.

The individual is directed to obtain papyrus, the proper writing materials of the time, and start composition--correcting any mistakes, of course.

And within two years this individual and his designees can make 100 copies and distribute them among a 100 mile radius.

Indeed, he had neither. Bottom line is he was not there; he was not an eye-witness.

The individual is welcome to write a paper on this issue to be reviewed by peers. I welcome the paper.

Interesting, the individual now claims he is a mind reader. Perchance the Randi Prize will fall!!

The individual specifically dismissed this claim above by demanding that I had no evidence of such. Here are his words regarding the Aramaic source of Mark:

Ipse dixit again. It should not at all disuade the individual that he has Provided No Evidence for This

I was merely drawing on the individuals claims that such scholarship was not presented.

Basically, he cannot support his postion. I made the offer sincerely, and it stands. I am afraid until he acts upon it, I cannot take him seriously.

Should the individual chose to confront the scholarship, he may find enlightenment. I cannot help those who cannot learn.

The references he has mentioned Do Not support his belief. Many of them have already received review--give me some time and I can try to post some of them--at the "office" currently. I am not certain what purpose a review of sources he misrepresents serves.

We would begin by merely taking notice that the indivdual actually read the scholarship. We would then proceed to construct the notion that scholarship resides on both sides of the issues, which is the point of this thread.

Now, the individual misrepresents the point. Lk did not expect to be contradicted. He did not "miss" that which he did not witness.

Then you must explain why such a late authorship from this unknown individual was not familar with a 100 year old document. Again, this is easier to explain the earlier the date of Luke becomes, not the later.

I would think the opportunity for the individual to contribute something as original as demonstrating the Synoptics were possibly written by eyewitnesses would prove quite apt.

There is no need to re-create the wheel. That the individual does not like the scholarship is the problem of the individuals.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Will note that the proper term is:

Individual's

Dr. Johnson's comment seems apt here:

You work is both good and original. Unfortunately, that which is good is not original and that which is original is not good.

What remains is that the individual has Failed to prove his contention and now is reduced to a poor imitation of scholarship.

As such, he requires no serious attention.

Should he progress, he knows how to reach me.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

What remains is that the individual has Failed to prove his contention and now is reduced to a poor imitation of scholarship.

That the individual does not like the imitation is the problem of the individual's. I cannot help those that cannot learn.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Rather a pity he cannot help himself.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

[Yahzi]

Stupidflucker
My only claim in this thread is that you can't prove they were not eyewitnesses
You can't prove they weren't space aliens. Does that mean the jury is still out on the Space Alien Author theory?

How is it a grown man can advance this kind of argument with a straight face? You must be the jury that let O.J. go.

I swear, SF, your stupidty continues to amaze me. Have you learned nothing? Have you no shame at all?


Edit: your, not you are. Hehe. Oops.

[stamenflicker]

Yahzi,

Troll.

You can't prove they weren't space aliens. Does that mean the jury is still out on the Space Alien Author theory?

Is there scholarly evidence to support the space alien author theory? Has it been published in journals? Is there anything that leans us in that direction? What does the Havard Theological Review say about it? What does the Journal of Biblical Studies say about it.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance.

How is it a grown man can advance this kind of argument with a straight face? You must be the jury that let O.J. go.

I advance the argument from the other side of the scholarship coin, which consequently exists-- much unlike your space alien analogy.

As to the second half of your ignorance: I'm sorry you have me confused with a) someone else; b) someone who cares what you have to say.

I swear, SF, your stupidty continues to amaze me. Have you learned nothing? Have you no shame at all?

Stupidity is one who can't read an entire thread and make a cogent point. You're category altogether.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Yahzi:

Whilst unfamiliar with the "Havard" journal [Stop that.--Ed.], since the individual failed to provide support for his contention from the literature--as noted by myself and others, his sources do not support his opinion without the use of recreational substances.

Though, of course, no need exists for the individual to have descended to such bad temper. To support his contention, he needed only provide the evidence for it and rebut the evidence given against it.

As you note, the "jury may be out" on a number of ridiculous things. Everyone has a right to an opinion; however, not every opinion is worthy of serious consideration.

--J.D.

[synaesthesia]

Let's grant for a moment that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus's miracles.

Honestly, that's not something I find ridiculous at all. It's perfectly reasonable: were there not witnesses to the miracle at Lourdes? Did not thousands watch *with their own eyes* as Uri Geller magically bent spoons. Have not eyewitnesses seen Carlos contact the dead even as they looked on?

Yes Virginia, people can decieve themselves grossly in real time, in mass numbers. Then there is the role that telling and re-telling the story plays in elaborating the, erm, miracles in question.

So some 'scholarly evidence' suggests eyewitnesses. What of it?

[Doctor X]

Well . . . indeed . . . you arrive at the second point. If eyewitnesses, how reliable.

The "argument"--in a sense--is that SINCE doubt exists in eyewitnesses THEN a particular interpretation is valid. A reader can then selectively read the texts to support whatever contention they want. The birth narratives mutually exclusive? Fine, we can believe the miracle. The loave 'n fishies repeated in Mk to demonstrate the foolishness of the disciples . . . okay . . . maybe not that miracle but like. . . .

Et cetera.

Unfortunately, too much error and inconsistency exists to save the "eyewitness" belief--this is not a new revelation.

I recall the "Jesus Seminar." I must admit I have "pooh-poohed" their work because their translations perpetuate traditional readings--if you have a pretense to objective scholarship, be an objective scholar. Part of what they do/did was "vote" on passages as to whether or not Jesus may have actually said it.

As one NT scholar and current chairman of a program sniffed, "I think they have concluded that he once said 'the!'"

Ridiculous!! Each scholar/theologian votes for passages he "likes" and supports his belief system and against those that do not. This is not scholarship, this is a farce!

I was admonished by a mentor--emeritus professor of NT--apologies for the "name dropping"--that I had, "missed the genius of Robinson." Robinson is one of the guys behind this.

Genius? Genius?!!!

"For years and years scholars have spoken of 'the teachings of Jesus' as if you can point to them, as if they are a coherent collection rather than what the scholar wants or puts into the texts. He has forced them to state them and has shown that they are different depending on the scholar."

What I find more interesting is the evidence of the "messages" developing over time with changing times.

Anyways, such rather again argues against "eyewitnesses."

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Dr. X,

"For years and years scholars have spoken of 'the teachings of Jesus' as if you can point to them, as if they are a coherent collection rather than what the scholar wants or puts into the texts. He has forced them to state them and has shown that they are different depending on the scholar."

So then there is only one choice in the matter? And it happens to be yours? That's what you've been aruging.

I found this article interesting and alluded to it above.

"A Written Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige(*)." by James Robinson, Harvard Theological Review, January 1999.

The author traces a coptic error in the Q manuscript through several renderings, specifically P. Oxy 655. The section traditionally ascribed to Jesus and placed by Matthew in "The Sermon on the Mount" deals with "the lilies of the field." Robinson notes that the Q source (assumed 70AD) was actually copied from an earlier written source (assumed 30-70).

There are basically four places where critical scholars, working on the little sayings collection embedded in Q concerning the ravens and lilies, have repeatedly identified secondary ingredients. They were not first introduced by Matthew or Luke into Q, but were already present in Q itself, since they are present in both canonical gospels. If the redaction of Q took place around 70CE, such secondary traits must have been added to the core of the small Q collection between 30 and 70, that is to say, in the same period of time when the scribal error itself has to be dated.

To anticipate the outcome, let me simply say that all four secondary traits of the Q text are absent from P. Oxy 655. There could be no more dramatic evidence that the tradition used by P.Oxy 655 itself goes back to the first generation of Christianity. Nothing short of finding a manuscript dating from the middle of the first century could be more conclusive.

--from HTR, January 1999. (Bold emphais mine.)

The article does a good job of demonstrating where such coptic errors occurred. It's worth the full read, but noteably, it's conclusions lead one to suspect an eye-witness record. Further, the author of this Q most likely got his information to Matthew and Luke, hence one credibility is scored over to Luke for claiming such.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Since Q is in Luke in its more primative form, I am wondering if we can say that it has a better chance of having "earwitness" rememberance of things than other gospels.

Mike B.

Sorry if I seemed to miss this one... Doc has me tied up with trivia. I read somewhere that the gospels most likely are written representations of the early kerygma or preaching of the apostles. After all Paul's conversion experience assumes that there was something to be converted to, meaning the general outline of Jesus and his mission were easily accessible by the middle of the first century. On the one hand, that's pretty astounding: that the interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was circulated with a few years of the event. On the other hand, it still became subject to further interpretation-- which we see Paul doing for the next several years.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Perhaps it is his pique and petulence that so drives such a willful misreading of other poster's words:

Moi: "For years and years scholars have spoken of 'the teachings of Jesus' as if you can point to them, as if they are a coherent collection rather than what the scholar wants or puts into the texts. He has forced them to state them and has shown that they are different depending on the scholar."

So then there is only one choice in the matter? And it happens to be yours? That's what you've been aruging (sic).

Since I have not at all indicated that "only one choice" exists in the above statement, nor do I indicate it is mine, I leave the Readership to recognize this for the argumentum ad vertitatum obfuscandum.

Such desperation is unseemly.

I found this article interesting. . . .

"A Written Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige(*)." by James Robinson, Harvard Theological Review, January 1999.

The author traces a coptic error in the Q. . . . . . . source (assumed 30-70).

Rather wide range incidentally.

There are basically four places . . , but were already present in Q itself, since they are present in both canonical gospels. If the redaction of Q took place around 70CE, such secondary traits must have been added to the core of the small Q collection between 30 and 70, . . .

Again, will note the wide time range; however, that is not relevant to the mistake made by the individual.

There could be no more dramatic evidence that the tradition used by P.Oxy 655 itself goes back to the first generation of Christianity.

This bears repeating:

There could be no more dramatic evidence that the tradition used. . . .

Note the word "tradition" rather than "words." This abstract does not argue that these are the actual words.

But what if they are? Proves irrelevant to the point of discussion.

Since it has been mistated or ignored by the individual in the topic he started devoted to it, allow me to reenlighten:

. . . it's conclusions lead one to suspect an eye-witness record.

". . . lead one to suspect. . . ."

No.

Parte the First

The original point, the argumentum ad rem, was that the Synoptics were Not Written by Eyewitnesses. That Lk or Mt or Mk or Joe Smith "may have" used an "eyewitness" source DOES NOT MAKE HIM AN EYEWITNESS.

Period.

Full Stop.

Terribly Sorry.

Parte the Second

At best, one can argue that the material preserves a tradition from early times. It does not prove that Junior or one of the Merry Men said this or said that.

Now, with all due respect, the individual takes a rather sizable leap of faith not visited since Evil Kineval attempted Snake River Canyon--though with less success:

Further, the author of this Q most likely got his information to Matthew and Luke, hence one credibility is scored over to Luke for claiming such.

Yes, "Q" was just sort of wandering about, 70-100 Years afterthefact with his copy and . . . well . . . you know . . . just handed it over. This of course does not explain why Mt and Lk needed Mk--they had an "eyewitness!" Fine, perhaps he was dysphasic and hard to communicate with. Perhaps he insisted on listening to music from the 30s which, for a generation brought up on music from the 70s onward, would prove most irritating.

Nevertheless, the individual would have us believe that despite this extraordinary boon Mt and Lk could not get the story correct.

It is probably Lk's fault since he followed Paul around and managed to misrepresent him!

If only a responsible evangelist existed.

Now, missing, also, is that Mk and Lk preserve LATER Q traditions--see Kloppenberg and Mack references. One can certainly argue with the Q Scholars about how many "Qs" they see at three in the morning when perusing the Greek; however, it would indicate that Mt and Lk used a later version of Q.

This, of course, would scuttle the argument that Lk used a direct "eyewitness."

Again, irrelevant since the argument was, and remains, that Mt, Lk, Mt were not eyewitnesses.

--J.D.

[Gregor]

Point 1: SFlick, really you should stop posting extraordinarily stupid things.

I was analyzing your one [assinine] argument - that the discrepancies between L/A and Galatians called for an earlier dating of L/A over the first person narrative of Galatians (despite the fact that L/A recounts events after Paul's death). Then you post this howler:
------
"he [the author of L/A] was unfamiliar with Paul's version of the story and quite possibly the number of times Paul went to Jersualem. As contemporaries, this makes SENSE." (emphasis mine)
------

What? ? ?

Your argument is:
1. They were contemporaries
2. They were traveling companions (presumably talking on and on about their life, conversion, etc.)
3. L/A author was UNFAMILIAR with Paul's conversion and UNFAMILIAR with the number of times Paul went to Jerusalem before they became companions.

That's extraordinarily dense. Sure, "The stories contradict - that's MORE consistent with the conclusion that they were friends, companions, and contemporaneous writers."

Sheesh

Point 2.

Dr. X - I appreciate the humor, keep it up.

[Doctor X]

Gregor:

You do me too much honor, sir.

I am only as good as the material, though I will confess I have been given some truly hilarious material. [Stop that!--Ed.]

Okay . . . okay . . . seriously, the problem comes from wanting a particular conclusion. This wanted conclusion is saving some historical accuracy of the Synoptics--which then allows one to hang one's personal beliefs upon a hook of history.

That does not really work, of course. That JFK actually went to Daley Plaza does not, by itself, justify my belief that his assassination was engineered by Star Fleet Command . . . or was it some misfits from a space tanker looking for curry . . . I can never remember. . . .

Anyways, it is disturbing to some to find a "history" to the "teachings" and "beliefs" of early--for want of a better term--Christianity.

Sorry.

It is even more disturbing if some of the cherished events--such as the "kerygma"--always seems pretentious to use that--did not happen or happen the way they were described. Even Mack in A Myth of Innocence wonders if Mk just "made up" the crucifixion.

What does one believe in, then?

I can only offer the wisdom of an old mentor whose courses tended to begin packed with students with gold-edged Bibles but dwindled to about ten by the end of the week--I rather think his statement: "Well, of course their is no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament!" wiped out twenty students right there.

I asked him if he has had a few teary eyed coeds approach him after class having had about twelve years of faith utterly decimated wondering what to do. He responed that he has had quite a few and he asks them:

"Do you have faith because of scripture or despite them?"

The Synoptics were written by men who had a purpose. Some of the purpose seems to be against "established" or "traditional" groups--why the disciples get treated so badly, for example. What relevance it had to "the Real Junior" [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] is anyone's guess, franky. As the same mentor put it: "All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."

Believers will provide the rest.

With regards to his first statement, I have asked people in similar connundrums what would they do if, somehow, I could prove, beyond all shadow of doubt, that all of scripture is a hoax--written on Dukes of Hazard stationary near the end of August, 1982.

Would they behave differently? Would they start hating their neighbor, committing crimes?

Unfortunately one stated he might. He rather holds the "atheists have no basis for morality" opinion which means if the NT has doubt he has a doubt in his morality. I find that unfortunate.

Rather, most can accept that doubt and move on. Now I do find much of the message "offensive"--good men cannot be saved in Jn, good men will be prevented from being saved in Mk--though I am willing to allow that this resulted from later followers trying to dismiss rivals--"he did not get the REAL teaching!! He is like a sow trying to pass through a transom!"

Perhaps Junior had such offensive opinions. If the Synoptics are "eyewitness" documents then, yes, that possibility becomes ever more real. Funny what certainty gives one.

Nevertheless, people can believe what they want, just as people can listen to country western music and hear music or look at a Picasso and see art. I might recommend serious therapy, but there you go.

The problem is that one cannot then demand others to share such based on the texts.

So, yes poor coed, you can still have faith in a deity that cares about you, and your pet bunny--I will leave aside the Pontine Problem for another day--I am not a cruel man . . . generally. Understand, though, the basis of such and do not expect others to share in it.

--J.D.

[Skeptical Greg]

Great Post Dr..

Enjoyed it...

Particulary:

"All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."
Believers will provide the rest.


:)

[Doctor X]

Thank you.

What my mentor stressed was that the lack of information allows all sorts of speculation.

To give an example, another somewhat jokingly provided his "gospel:"

1. Junior states he will destroy the Temple
2. Fails of course.
3. Riot or disturbance starts.
4. Romans "deal" with disturbance.
5. Whether or not Junior gets squished here, at least two followers becomes captured.
6. One, a "Judas," disillusioned or just plain scared, turns "state's evidence."
7. The other, "Peter," denies he had anything to do with Junior.

Evidence? What you want evidence?!!

As this mentor explained, it "explains" some of the problematic traditions:

1. Accussation of threatening to destroy the Temple which later becomes "smoothed."
2. Death/Execution
3. Tradition of a betrayal--why would such a great guy get betrayed?
4. A clearly severe tradition against Peter.

Of course, anyone can state that some of these elements are "mythic" elements--betrayal.

Thus, one has to be careful how much one assumes is "actual" as in "historical" and how much is fiction. When accounts fail to match what is known, that brings the stories into severe question.

--J.D.

[Yahzi]

Dr. X
The problem is that one cannot then demand others to share such based on the texts.
Bravo!

Which is how we got liberal Xianity in the first place - some of them actually thought about it.

And now, of course, thinking about things isn't fashionable anymore.

[stamenflicker]

was analyzing your one [assinine] argument - that the discrepancies between L/A and Galatians called for an earlier dating of L/A over the first person narrative of Galatians (despite the fact that L/A recounts events after Paul's death).

That's not exactly what I said... I'm not arguing for an earlier date than Galatians-- that would be stupid. Merely suggesting that the author of Luke / Acts was clearly not familar with the epistle. This unfamilarity lends itself to a early date, not a later one. The church began hording Paul's letters relatively early, so if one makes the claim for a late authorship, then that same one should explain why the author had no knowledge of such a popular epistle. This is doubly true since Ignatius (70 - 110) contain quotes from Galatians. Point: the epistle was known by those debating and advancing Christianity. Point two: the author Luke / Acts did not know it. A possible conclusion: The author was writing early. If that's stupid then you have no concept of the term.

L/A author was UNFAMILIAR with Paul's conversion and UNFAMILIAR with the number of times Paul went to Jerusalem before they became companions.

The author clearly demonstrates his knowledge of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts-- you need a re-read. As far the number of trips, we have no indication that Luke shadowed Paul his entire career. So maybe Paul just up and went 37 more times than either Galatians or Acts reports, we just don't know.

That's extraordinarily dense.

Is it? Or are you just too dense to get it?

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

the problem comes from wanting a particular conclusion

I agree. And you desparately want there to be no evidence to early authorship or possible eye-witnesses. Which explains both your cognitive ability in this thread, and your reading comprehension skills.

This wanted conclusion is saving some historical accuracy of the Synoptics--which then allows one to hang one's personal beliefs upon a hook of history.

Wrong. The removal of the historical accuracy is the task of the scholar, not visa-versa. The texts bore the scrutiny of those closest to the event, so further arguments (modern) need to establish evidence to the contrary. Many scholars have done so, I'll not deny it, but certainly not enough to warrant your fundamentalist viewpoints.

It is even more disturbing if some of the cherished events--such as the "kerygma"--always seems pretentious to use that--did not happen or happen the way they were described. Even Mack in A Myth of Innocence wonders if Mk just "made up" the crucifixion.

And sometimes I wonder if I can fly.

"Do you have faith because of scripture or despite them?"


An excellent quesiton.

The Synoptics were written by men who had a purpose.

So is everything that has ever been written.

The problem is that one cannot then demand others to share such based on the texts.

I've never witnessed anyone demand Christianity out of anyone else. I suppose if we go back to the Spanish Inquistion...

Since I have not at all indicated that "only one choice" exists in the above statement, nor do I indicate it is mine, I leave the Readership to recognize this for the argumentum ad vertitatum obfuscandum.

Well then I suppose I need a re-read. You've continually said over and over that the gospels cannot represent that of contempory eye-witness accounts. You continue to post it over and over in spite of scholarly evidence which allows for an alternate opinion.

Rather wide range incidentally.

And the entire bit of the "wide range" allows for eye-witness accounts. What's up [with that] Doc?

Note the word "tradition" rather than "words." This abstract does not argue that these are the actual words.

You're gasping for air Doc. Maybe the author knows all to well that short of building a time machine, we won't know for sure. The fact still remains it is a solid possibility for "first generation Christianity" to have represented itself with eye-witness accounts. Can you deny this claim?

But what if they are? Proves irrelevant to the point of discussion.

I disagree.

The original point, the argumentum ad rem, was that the Synoptics were Not Written by Eyewitnesses. That Lk or Mt or Mk or Joe Smith "may have" used an "eyewitness" source DOES NOT MAKE HIM AN EYEWITNESS.

Talk about back-peddling. If you will notice the topic of thread says "eye-witnesses." I'm merely arguing that at least some of the scholarship allows for the gospel of Luke to contain eye-witness accounts. You say it doesn't, so are you changing your view?

Yes, "Q" was just sort of wandering about, 70-100 Years afterthefact with his copy and . . . well . . . you know . . . just handed it over. This of course does not explain why Mt and Lk needed Mk--they had an "eyewitness!" Fine, perhaps he was dysphasic and hard to communicate with. Perhaps he insisted on listening to music from the 30s which, for a generation brought up on music from the 70s onward, would prove most irritating.

Try 20 to 50 years. That's a huge difference in terms of potential eye-witnesses. Further, you wildly ass-u-me that the author of Q was not an eye-witness.

Now, missing, also, is that Mk and Lk preserve LATER Q traditions--see Kloppenberg and Mack references. One can certainly argue with the Q Scholars about how many "Qs" they see at three in the morning when perusing the Greek; however, it would indicate that Mt and Lk used a later version of Q.

Whether or not they had coffee, you've found a unique way to dodge the scholarly support for my position. While your at it, just go ahead and assume the reviewers of Harvard Theological Review were simulatenously sleep deprived.

Flick

[Doctor X]

The individual's tantrum does not support for his contention that Mk, Lk, or Mt were eyewitnesses make.

Period.

Will note, en passant he has tried to avoid the opportunity to provide it.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

[LW]

Originally posted by Doctor X
The individual's tantrum does not support for his contention that Mk, Lk, or Mt were eyewitnesses make.
Now, reading through this thread it could be best summarised as:

Stamenflicker: "I claim A and here's the evidence for it."

Doctor X: "You claim B and have to prove it."

Stamenflicker: "I don't claim B and we can't possibly prove B. I claim A, and here's the evidence for it."

Doctor X: "That evidence doesn't support B. Provide evidence for B."

And so on...

[Gregor]

Actually, the better description is

SFlick: It is commonly accepted that A is true. In support here is reference to C & F.

X: It is not commonly accepted that A is true. If you want to argue that A is true, don't cite C & F, but please argue why A is true.

S Flick: But D and W are true.

X: We weren't talking B & W. Please support A is true

SFlick: But not-D and not-W are true

X: Stay on target

SFlick: I never said D, I said not-D

SFlick: No, No. Now I am saying not-W and D

SFlick: Let me say W and not-W in the very same sentence:

-----
"I'm not arguing for an EARLIER date than Galatians-- that would be stupid. [I'm] [m]erely suggesting that the author of Luke / Acts was clearly not familar with the epistle. This unfamilarity lends itself to a early date"
-----

SFlick's "evidence" for an eyewitness account from Luke is merely some differening word tenses in portions of Luke and a thought that Q was written very early. Anyone claiming this is evidence has not much to stand on.

The rest of his trash:
1. Doctor - not a doctor
2. substantially earlier than 70 CE - relied on Josephus, thus not earlier than 96
3. before Galations - not before Galations
etc.

[stamenflicker]

My one and only claim in this entire thread that I will stand by as an utter certainty is this:

The possiblity of eye-witness representation in the gospels exists.

In addition,

The scholars are divided on the issue of eye-witness accounts (note plural).

The claims made by Doc X that NONE of the gospels were written by contemporaries, or eye-witnesses is on its very best day, a one-sided representation of the scholarship.

There can be no definite conclusions on this matter. I certainly haven't drawn any conclusions, other that the very title of this thread:

"Gospel of Luke-- eyewitnesses? The Jury is still out.

The fact that anyone even showed up to counter the claim is relative proof of a fundamentalist viewpoint.

SFlick's "evidence" for an eyewitness account from Luke is merely some differening word tenses in portions of Luke and a thought that Q was written very early. Anyone claiming this is evidence has not much to stand on.

But you have a lot more. Besides the testimony of the document itself, the testimony of the early church fathers and historians, and numerous other considerations-- a dozen or more of which exist in this thread, one would be hard pressed to deny the possibility.

Flick

[Doctor X]

The jury is indeed out in that it rendered it verdict, packed its bags, and has gone home.

That the individual sits in the court room unhappy with the verdict remains his error.

I will repeat: The Synoptics were not written by eyewitnesses.

If the individual has evidence to the contrary he is free to publish it. Thus far he has not.

He has offered evidence that does not support his point. Thus:

But you have a lot more.

Rather unfortunate use of the word "more" since nothing has been offered before it.

Besides the testimony of the document itself, . . .

which I and other Posters have shown demonstrate the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses.

. . . the testimony of the early church fathers and historians, . . .

which existed something like 100-300 years after composition and, unfortunately, recognized the problems with the Synoptic gospels? This is not evidence for eyewitness accounts!

. . . and numerous other considerations-- a dozen or more of which exist in this thread, . . .

only in the mind of the individual. Again he is free to offer a cogent and reasoned argument to submit for publication.

. . . one would be hard pressed to deny the possibility.

if one was dishonest, yes.

He may cry over and over again that "scholars" exist that support him, but without the evidence, without the textual support, he whines into an empty courtroom.

--J.D.

[Edited for hitting "Post" to soon.--Ed.]

[stamenflicker]

The jury is indeed out in that it rendered it verdict, packed its bags, and has gone home.

Wrong.

I will repeat: The Synoptics were not written by eyewitnesses.

Prove it.

which I and other Posters have shown demonstrate the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses.

You've done little to nothing here by way of presenting evidence. You did post two links to Amazon.com, the latter of which is a dead link BTW. I hardly call that "demonstrating" your point.

which existed something like 100-300 years after composition and, unfortunately, recognized the problems with the Synoptic gospels? This is not evidence for eyewitness accounts!

Since YOU say so it must be true. Where do I get off countering such wisdom?

if one was dishonest

I'd say any reasonable reader can see clearly who shoulders the dishonesty in this thread.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Wrong.

Ipse dixit and, since contrary to the evidence presented here and in the references, incorrect.

Prove it.

I recommend, again, that the individual avail himself of the references kindly given and to the information offered by myself and other posters in this and another thread.

You've done little to nothing here by way of presenting evidence.

If the individual wishes to remain blind, that is his problem. Point of fact he simply dismissed the entirety of scholarship against him as from "experts." regarding his failure to find the references on Amazon , methinks it should not be too difficult to search them based on the titles? If not, I can reference them again.

As stated, I am not interested in "doing homework" for the uninterested. If the individual had basic problems with physics, he should consider a good physics textbook. Similarly, since he has problems with about a hundred years of scholarship he should consider consulting some of the basic texts.

However, if he had evidence contrary to such basics he has been more than free to reveal it.

Thus far, he has not.

He has misrepresented posters and references.

Moi: [On the "Church Fathers"--Ed.] . . . which existed something like 100-300 years after composition and, unfortunately, recognized the problems with the Synoptic gospels? This is not evidence for eyewitness accounts!

Since YOU say so it must be true. Where do I get off countering such wisdom?

Does the individual now consider three hundred year late opinions equal with fact? Rather it remains his "saying so" that offeres "wisdom" and historical accuracy to their opinions.

If such consist of his standard for historical and documentary evidence I am begining to understand his problems.

I'd say any reasonable reader can see clearly who shoulders the dishonesty in this thread.

As render'd by the posters thus far, it rests quite firmly on the individual's shoulders.

Of course he could always create some sockpuppets to marshall to his cause. I would think it far easier for him to just read some of the basics.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Ipse dixit and, since contrary to the evidence presented here and in the references, incorrect.

You've offered little and what you've offered is strictly one-sided. And I do plan on reading your sources. The first 15 pages of your "source" is available on Amazon for preview. After looking at just that last night, I noticed the author argues that the notion of "gospel" was well established by the preaching of Paul... not exactly the viewpoint you represented. I'm confident that as I read it, there will be many more.

I recommend, again, that the individual avail himself of the references kindly given and to the information offered by myself and other posters in this and another thread.

Believe me, I will. Though I doubt seriously I will see anything I've not seen before.

Point of fact he simply dismissed the entirety of scholarship against him as from "experts."

Wrong. I simply reject the idea that your "experts" are any better than those whose scholarship reflects a differing opinion.

However, if he had evidence contrary to such basics he has been more than free to reveal it.

I've done so throughout this thread, any reader can backtrack. You've yet to counter any of the scholarship, except to say they were too sleepy to make sound judgments... o yeah, and your trademark response: "The error remains the individual's." Fact is I know your position better than you did and the readership here would have been better served to see a debate with myself.

He has misrepresented posters and references.

I don't believe that I have. If so it was unintentional. Perhaps you might begin with a specific example?

Does the individual now consider three hundred year late opinions equal with fact? Rather it remains his "saying so" that offeres "wisdom" and historical accuracy to their opinions.

You will find no references to fact, instead if you take off the fundamentalist glasses a moment, what you will find is evidence that opens the door to possibilities.

If such consist of his standard for historical and documentary evidence I am begining to understand his problems.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

As render'd by the posters thus far, it rests quite firmly on the individual's shoulders.

No I've found myself in a room full of posers. Quite different than the representation in scholarly circles.

Of course he could always create some sockpuppets to marshall to his cause. I would think it far easier for him to just read some of the basics.

The classic Doc X response: "I'm right. I've posted only about 1/15 the number of references, but I'm right. You just need to read more."

Truly laughable.

Flick

[Doctor X]

No one can think that I enjoy this continued exposure of the individual; however, when he continues to misrepresent I must, out of noblese obligue act on behalf of the Readership.

You've offered little and what you've offered is strictly one-sided.

It remains, again, the individual's error born from wilfull ignorance of the scholarship. We all await this Other Side [Pat. Pend.--Ed.]; yet do we still wait in vain.

Granted, a statement that rocks strike the Earth when drop'd may seem "one sided" to a proponent of theories that deny gravity. Of course, such proponents would then have to come up with an alternative theory.

Thus far, the individual has refused invititations from myself and other posters to do just that.

And I do plan on reading your sources. The first 15 pages of your "source" is available on Amazon for preview.

I thought they were a "dead link." Gather that was just another attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

After looking at just that last night, I noticed the author argues that the notion of "gospel" was well established by the preaching of Paul... not exactly the viewpoint you represented.

Misrepresentation [No shouting.--Ed.] Sorry, just wanted to underscore the attempt on the part of the individual. I never argued against a "notion of 'gospel' was well established by the. . . ."

On the contrary, I contended that, once again for the individual who is not paying attention:

The Synoptics were Not Written by Eyewitnesses

Let me repeat that, he might miss it again:

The Synoptics were Not Written by Eyewitnesses

Perhaps this will help:

The Synoptics were Not Written by Eyewitnesses

That a concept of "gospel" existed prior to Paul or anyone else does NOT make Lk, Mt, Mk eyewitnesses.

Period.

Full Stop.

Try again.

I'm confident that as I read it, there will be many more.

Since the individual choses to read--if one can elevate his efforts with such a noble title--with such malicious incomprehension then I am sure he will find evidence for the Easter Bunny in Koester and Mack.

It will not make actually exist, of course.

Believe me, I will. Though I doubt seriously I will see anything I've not seen before.

He may actually see what is there rather than what he believes is there. I would consider that progress.

Wrong. I simply reject the idea that your "experts" are any better than those whose scholarship reflects a differing opinion.

Which . . . for some unfathomable reason . . . the individual canst produce.

Why?

Rather, the charge stands. The individual selectively dismisses any evidence--even the weight of DECADES, if not CENTURIES of scholarship--that does not conform to his preconceived notions.

I've done so throughout this thread, . . .

No, the individual has MISREPRESENTED scholars and posters.

. . . any reader can backtrack.

Which they have, incidentally, and have rather voted against the individual.

You've yet to counter any of the scholarship, except to say they were too sleepy to make sound judgments...

I remain unaware where I stated that any scholar suffered from somulence. Since I have yet to be presented with a scholar or textual evidence that actually supports the individual, I have to recognize this as just another Lie on the part of the individual.

. . . o (sic) yeah, and your trademark response: "The error remains the individual's."

It does. The individual may correct his unfortunate state by expending roughly 37.8% of his effort to mislead and misconstrue with responsible investigation.

The choice remains, as always, the individual's.

Fact is I know your position better than you did. . . .

I see the individual now wishes to apply for the JREF Prize? Unfortunately, his mistatements rather demonstrate the contrary. Nevertheless, failure to perform as advertised has never disuaded a claimant for paranormal powers.

Much easier to read responsibly methinks.

. . . and the readership here would have been better served to see a debate with myself.

While the Readership may be entertained watching the individual play with himself, I am not certain it will advance the cause of scholarship . . . though it may, indeed, frighten the horses. . . .

I don't believe that I have. If so it was unintentional. Perhaps you might begin with a specific example?

The individual is refered to the example cited in the opening of this response.

You will find no references to fact, . . .

Well that rather killed his argument; he cannot even support the basis of his supposition.



Note the attempt at Poisoning the Well by reversing a charge worthy of himself towards opponents. Perchance he learned this from the ilk who consider themselves "skeptics" when they demand the Readership swallow their beliefs without question? It would explain much of the errors in reasoning exhibited by the individual.

[quote]. . . what you will find is evidence that opens the door to possibilities.

"Possibilities."

That is it?

Sources from THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the composition of the texts suddenly offer Possibilities concerning their composition?

This somehow magically removes the contradictions in the texts that overturn the possibility that the authors were themselves eyewitnesses?

Again, if THIS consists of the individual's standard for evidence then I understand how he can believe anything, no matter how self-contradictory.

No I've found myself in a room full of posers. Quite different than the representation in scholarly circles.

Well . . . shame on you viscious and naughty posters who FAIL'D to PROSTRATE thineselves before the MANEFEST TRUTH [All Rights Reserved--Ed.] of the individual DESPITE THE FACT HE HAS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT!!

Damnation! A plague upon your houses!

However, the individual will find his treatment here rather more cordial than if he stood up in a scholarly meeting and behaved as he has here.

Of course he is afraid to do this.

He has been offered the opportunity to have his wisdom published--or at least submitted for peer-review.

He had fled from this.

THAT singular act of cowardice rather trumps any of the spew he has spread across this thread or any else he will excrete.

Either he can back his claim or he cannot.

Period.

Full Stop.

The classic Doc X response: "I'm right. I've posted only about 1/15 the number of references, but I'm right. You just need to read more."

Truly laughable.

What is regretable--for such fools do not elicit laughter and more deserve pity--is that the individual STILL has yet to post ONE reference in support of himself.

If a long list of irrelevant references or ones that contradict my arguments are what the individual wants, I suppose I can clog up the bandwidth with them. However, like his tantrum, they will remain irrelevant to the topic.

--J.D.

[Edited to correct various scribal errors.--Ed.]

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

I fully recognize this as a golden opportunity for you to blather on about nothing just in order to dilute the thread and hide your inadequate & incompetent nature. I'll not play along, but instead continue to post and re-post the evidence which you so richly despise.

I thought they were a "dead link." Gather that was just another attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

Hence we see the continued inability of the good Doctor to read a post. My exact words were:

You did post two links to Amazon.com, the latter of which is a dead link BTW.
"The latter of which," that being the Mack thing-a-ma-do-- alias.... your fundamentalist deity in this thread.

How can you claim to even be reading my posts, when such an easily comprehendible statement escapes your grasp?

The individual selectively dismisses any evidence--even the weight of DECADES, if not CENTURIES of scholarship--that does not conform to his preconceived notions.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where such a dismissal has occurred. The fact remains you have presented ZERO scholarship in this debate. You continually refer to source called "Mack" but fail to post the name of the work, a page number, and though I may be mistaken, I've not seen an actual quote from his "scholarship" in this thread.

Sorry, just wanted to underscore the attempt on the part of the individual. I never argued against a "notion of 'gospel' was well established by the. . . ."

Hmmm. Far be it for there to be any connection between the two concepts.

That a concept of "gospel" existed prior to Paul or anyone else does NOT make Lk, Mt, Mk eyewitnesses.

Nor does it make them NOT-NOT eyewitnesses, which BTW for the dumb at heart, is the point of this thread.

Since the individual choses to read--if one can elevate his efforts with such a noble title--with such malicious incomprehension then I am sure he will find evidence for the Easter Bunny in Koester and Mack.

You must have great confidence in my abilities.

I remain unaware where I stated that any scholar suffered from somulence.

Your words:

One can certainly argue with the Q Scholars about how many "Qs" they see at three in the morning when perusing the Greek
And that ladies and gents is the best Doc X can offer the summary I posted of HTR, 1999, James Robinson scholarship.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Finally, the Proto-Luke argument put forth by V. Taylor summarizing the work of the scholars Feine, Weiss, Burkitt, Stanton, Hawkins, Bartlet, Sanday, and Perry in the book Behind the Third Gospel (1926). Significantly, this theory is supported by R. Bultmann in several different places due to the passion narratives being significantly different in Luke and Mark. Luke’s passion narrative suggests that he knew some other source, living or oral tradition before he met Mark at the forming of the early church…. Caird, Hawkins, Oxford Studies, Osty, Borgen and several other sources—most notably in NTS 5, (1959); NTS 7 (1960).

The above quote has been so readily dodged by the good doctor. So I again ask him to dismiss the proto-Luke theory with realistic sources from scholarly journals. And I should note such attempts have been made and that the scholarly community reamains divided on the issue.

Of what signficance is a Proto-Luke? It points to a greater possibility of eye-witness input into the crafting of the gospel. Luke was using sources, sources he personally claimed were eyewitness in the first chapter of his gospel.

So, let's see.

1) Luke claims "eyewitnesses" in chapter one.
2) There exists scholarly support for a "rough draft," or earlier version of the gospel.
3) A rough draft demands an earlier date than the canonical version.
4) An earlier date increases the likelihood of eyewitnesses, although such early dating is not necessary since the community agrees on a late 90's dating of the canonical version, which is a dominant opinion.

I will continue until you actually address my posts or go away.

Flick

[Doctor X]

The individual vows to continue to lie.

What a surprise.

As noted above, and as argued by other posters, Lk does not claim to be an eyewitness but refers to accounts handed down. I will remind the Readership of the individual's misreading of the opening of Lk--in both in the English translation and in the Greek.

I will remind, also, that the point of contention remains:

The Authors of the Synoptic Gospels were Not Eyewitnesses

The individual may try to twist this as he wishes, but it only underscores his lack of honesty, of honor, his cowardice.

Thus, the quote:

Luke?s passion narrative suggests that he knew some other source, living or oral tradition before he met Mark at the forming of the early church?.

"knew some other source, living or oral tradition" DOES NOT EQUAL EYEWITNESS.

It certainly does not make Lk an eyewitness.

Period.

The individual is free to have his incontinence of emotion, his lies, his cowardice. I, on the other hand, deal with gentlemen. Thus, I can not take any further post from him seriously.

Offered to provide evidence, he FAILED, he MISREPRESENTED the scholarship as he misrepresents the quote he gave. He MISREPRESENTED the words of posters as well as myself.

Since he is no gentleman, I shall not waste further effort with him. I shall continue, for the benefit of the Readership, EXPOSE his dishonor, his lies, his cowardice as is necessary, though I doubt it is very necessary, since it seems that no one takes him at all seriously. My remonstration of his behavior, compared to that of others, is "measur'd in manner and speech" indeed.

It is certainly kinder than his behavior deserves.

--J.D.

[LW]

Originally posted by Doctor X
As noted above, and as argued by other posters, Lk does not claim to be an eyewitness but refers to accounts handed down.
Has anyone in this thread claimed otherwise? I admit that I've not read every line in every post but I haven't seen anyone to claim that Luke was an eyewitness. Definitely not Stamenflicker.

I will remind, also, that the point of contention remains:

The Authors of the Synoptic Gospels were Not Eyewitnesses
Have you read anything that Stamenflicker has written on this thread? Anything? Can you provide a single quote where he claims that Luke was an eyewitness?

His point has been for the whole time that it is possible that there are some eyewitness accounts that are incorporated in the text.

A book may have eyewitness content even if its author is not an eyewitness. For exampke, some time ago I read "Panttipataljoona" by Mauno Jokipii. It is an account of Finnish SS-men in WWII. Jokipii himself wasn't one. In fact, he was a toddler during the war. But his book contains several dozens of extracts from interviews, diaries, and reports authored by SS-men. Those extracts don't make Jokipii an eyewitness but to start shouting that "the author of Panttipataljoona was not an eyewitness" would be, in my not-so-humble opinion, rather ridiculous.

Now, whether Luke really contains those eyewitness accounts or not, I don't know. There's seems to be some evidence that it does. I haven't had time (or energy) to go through the references that have been posted to see what they say.

I shall continue, for the benefit of the Readership, EXPOSE his dishonor, his lies, his cowardice as is necessary, though I doubt it is very necessary, since it seems that no one takes him at all seriously.
Well, I take him much more seriously than I take you in this thread. By the way, when you find yourself writing in BOLDED CAPS you should probably count to ten or to hundred before continuing.

[Gregor]

The life of this thread (and its boisterousness) I think is attributable to SFlick's "all over the map" arguing tactics.

The title was "gospel of Luke - eyewitnesses".

The subtitle was the birth narrative

The cited authority was simply some attempt to argue for: (i) different syntax for the first portion of Luke and (ii) some attempt to argue for a early dating for Luke's gospel, in toto.

However, SFlick's linguistic argument about chapter 1 of Luke is a conundrum. Chapter 1 ONLY deals with the impregnation and the majority is given over to discussing John the Baptist. It doesn't talk about the birth at all - the census, tax, and birth are in chapter 2. So, why would some semantic questions about John the Baptist have ANYTHING to do with the birth in Chapter 2?

Don't you understand that these three puzzle pieces don't go together?

Don't you understand that SFlick is simply mixing unrelated items together (perhaps unintentionally) in an attempt to support something?


The title implies to me that SFlick meant to argue that Luke was an eyewitness. It is silly to think that it was meant to argue that someone was an eyewitness, at some point. If SFlick meant to start an exchange about figurative birth narratives versus historical birth narratives, he clearly could have argued differently.

Maybe my limited intellect doesn't allow me to follow the subtle nature of SFlick's arguing style. Because he quickly devolved into strange arguments over Luke as doctor, Luke as writing before Paul, Josephus as stealing from Luke, and etc. But does this relate in any way to the topic - if there is one?

And to be quite frank, even after a week of following this debate, I still don't know what SFlick's point is meant to be?

Let me be the pseudo-Flick and present what I assume he might have meant to argue, ab initio:

- - - - - - -
1. The ghostly impregnation and birth narratives in Luke (Chapters 1 & 2)were historical recountings of the actual impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.

2. Obviously, there were no eyewitnesses to the angel visiting Mary - other than Mary in Ch 1. The anonymous author of Luke (hereafter "AAOL") doesn't claim to have spoken to Mary, personally.

3. Similarly, AAOL certainly was not there at the birth in Ch 2.

4. Admittedly, the timing of the census and tax in Ch 2 is problematical, as the Roman records for taxes when Quinirious was govenor was in 6 CE - yet Herod was supposedly the king, and he died in 4 BCE - but I can explain that ten year discrepancy . . . (I really can't and neither can SFlick).

5. Regardless, Mary's impregnation story would have been told by her to . . .(?) ., and it would have been a reliable second-hand story. Luke would have spoken with Mr. ? . . . . .

6. The birth in Bethlehem and the visit from the shepards would have been told to . . . (?). . ., and it would have been a reliable second-hand story. Luke would have spoken with Mr. ? . . .

7. AAOL would have probably heard these stories from additional sources . . . (?) . ., and thus, we can rely upon their historical accuracy.

8. I know my thesis has problems because: (i) Jesus never preaches "just as I was born of a virgin" or "as you know I was born in Bethlehem" and in fact he 'says' (and thus Q probably said) that he was doubted because he came from Nazareth and nothing good comes from Nazareth; (ii) Paul never mentions impregnation or birth, and he was probably the first with written accounts - the Q is a theory, oral narratives are inherently untrustworthy, and Mark was not written before 70 CE; (iii) AAOL is writing in 96 CE - long after memories of an impregnation 90 years earlier occurred have faded; and (iv) while Acts recounts James' claimed supremacy as the heard of the church after Jesus' death, he does not support his claim by being the brother of the virgin-born deity.

Thus, these are counter-arguments that tend to imply the impregnation and birth were "after thoughts" and never meant to be taken literally. But, my argument (as pseudo-Flick) of historicity is reasonable."

- - - - - - -

See - was that so hard

[Doctor X]

LW:

It would appear you would do well to take your own advice--breath before posting.

For, in answer to your question, Gregor notes:

The title was "gospel of Luke - eyewitnesses".

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now, what you further failed to discern for whatever reason is that the individual took serious exception to my contention in another thread that the authors of the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses.

Indeed, he took increasingly angry and insulting exception. This, in and of itself, would merit little notice, had he not compounded the error by misrepresenting scholors and posters.

Yes, I used a bold, for it seems to attract your attention to the point. For:

I admit that I've not read every line in every post. . . .

this is an error perhaps you would do well to remedy.

Now, had . . . sorry . . . had the individual simply responded, way back, to my references with:

I'm am sorry but I am afraid I am not convinced.

I would have kindly invited him to follow up on the references--particularly their bibliography.

Then, if after reading them, the individual stated:

Well, according to the third chapter of Mack's work, second page, third line in the fourth paragraph:

One thing is clear from textual criticism is that Doctor X has an unhealthy attraction for garlic presses and a refusal to recognize that Luke wrote Lk-Acts between the hours of 10:30 and 10:47 A.M. in 54 CE--utilizing his well-documented powers of clairvoyance. Indeed, scholars plan to devote an entire day of the next meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature to his condemnation, excommunication, and burning at the stake. His feet also smell.

I have some reservations concerning the validity of his claim.

I would have responded with only a minor temper-tantrum of "I'm-Not-Listening-La!-La!-La!" and then conceeded the point.

Or, had he responded:

Fine, all of the evidence overturns the belief that they were eyewitnesses. I am still not convinced but I understand why you are. The scholars still plan to have your "put to the question," however.

My response would have been "fine." [You would have danced the "I Told You So" dance.--Ed.] Not in public.

What does not matter is your personal feelings, mine or even the individual, but what the evidence demonstrates.

Period.

Full stop.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

The life of this thread (and its boisterousness) I think is attributable to SFlick's "all over the map" arguing tactics.

I have more to offer than time to offer it. My apologies if it seems so.

The title was "gospel of Luke - eyewitnesses".

Indeed. It’s a plural. The jury is still out on whether or not the gospel is comprised of many different first person accounts dating to the first generation of Christians.

The cited authority was simply some attempt to argue for: (i) different syntax for the first portion of Luke and (ii) some attempt to argue for a early dating for Luke's gospel, in toto.

First of all, it’s authorities (plural). Not authority (singular). Second, the linguistic differences point to another source behind the canonical version of the gospel, which may, and I emphasize “may” lend itself to the discussion of eyewitnesses. It certainly doesn’t detract from the claim.

Chapter 1 ONLY deals with the impregnation and the majority is given over to discussing John the Baptist. It doesn't talk about the birth at all - the census, tax, and birth are in chapter 2. So, why would some semantic questions about John the Baptist have ANYTHING to do with the birth in Chapter 2?

I only mentioned chapter one because I was typing in a hurry. If you like I can consult the authorities (plural) to see exactly what chapter and verse the Hebraic linguistic orgy stops. Chapters and verses are much later additions to the text—the birth narrative admittedly extends beyond chapter one, as does this “behind the scenes” source.

Don't you understand that SFlick is simply mixing unrelated items together (perhaps unintentionally) in an attempt to support something?

The support is already there Gregor. I’m just letting it get some breathing room in this forum.

The title implies to me that SFlick meant to argue that Luke was an eyewitness. It is silly to think that it was meant to argue that someone was an eyewitness, at some point. If SFlick meant to start an exchange about figurative birth narratives versus historical birth narratives, he clearly could have argued differently.

I posted above that it would be foolish to look at the author of Luke as an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus. I do not hold that view. I do think that evidence exists that shows the author of Luke was a contemporary and eyewitness to the first generation of believers, and that as his own declaration states, he received credible information from them.

Maybe my limited intellect doesn't allow me to follow the subtle nature of SFlick's arguing style. Because he quickly devolved into strange arguments over Luke as doctor, Luke as writing before Paul, Josephus as stealing from Luke, and etc. But does this relate in any way to the topic - if there is one?

Sure it does. It supports the theory that Luke used first person accounts while crafting his gospel.

And to be quite frank, even after a week of following this debate, I still don't know what SFlick's point is meant to be?

So let me put it out here again for about the 10th time. There is scholarly evidence that suggests Luke was a contemporary of the early church and perhaps used sources from eyewitness accounts (plural) to create his gospel.

Furthermore, Doc X is fundamentally (pun intended) mistaken to claim that no scholarship exists to support eyewitness renderings of any of the gospels.

[I can’t wait to tackle John with him.]

The ghostly impregnation and birth narratives in Luke (Chapters 1 & 2)were historical recountings of the actual impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.

I would not ever, never ever submit this as a conclusion. Do I think it is a possibility? Yes, in as far as the author of Luke tried to represent a first person account.

Similarly, AAOL certainly was not there at the birth in Ch 2.

I’ve agreed with this statement in at least two other posts.

Admittedly, the timing of the census and tax in Ch 2 is problematical, as the Roman records for taxes when Quinirious was govenor was in 6 CE - yet Herod was supposedly the king, and he died in 4 BCE - but I can explain that ten year discrepancy . . . (I really can't and neither can SFlick).

I offered the following above: a) all parties involved have the date wrong b) Matthew has the date right, but Luke has it wrong; c) Luke has the date right and everyone else is wrong

Regardless, Mary's impregnation story would have been told by her to . . .(?) ., and it would have been a reliable second-hand story. Luke would have spoken with Mr. ?

That remains a possibility.

The birth in Bethlehem and the visit from the shepards would have been told to . . . (?). . ., and it would have been a reliable second-hand story. Luke would have spoken with Mr. ?

As does this.

AAOL would have probably heard these stories from additional sources . . . (?) . ., and thus, we can rely upon their historical accuracy.

I’m drawing zero conclusions here. You guys are the ones with all the omniscient answers in this thread. I’m merely demonstrating that at least some of the evidence supports the possibility.

I know my thesis has problems because: (i) Jesus never preaches "just as I was born of a virgin" or "as you know I was born in Bethlehem" and in fact he 'says' (and thus Q probably said) that he was doubted because he came from Nazareth and nothing good comes from Nazareth; (ii) Paul never mentions impregnation or birth, and he was probably the first with written accounts - the Q is a theory, oral narratives are inherently untrustworthy, and Mark was not written before 70 CE; (iii) AAOL is writing in 96 CE - long after memories of an impregnation 90 years earlier occurred have faded; and (iv) while Acts recounts James' claimed supremacy as the heard of the church after Jesus' death, he does not support his claim by being the brother of the virgin-born deity.

Had you read anything I’ve posted on this board for the past year, then you would know that I believe the infancy narratives are latter insertions into the gospels and probably were not present in the original document. I’ve indicated that evidence leads us to such a probability in several other threads. Still, the fact remains, and the evidence remains, that can lead us down a different path. It’s hardly the “open and shut case” that you and the good doctor desire it to be.

Thus, these are counter-arguments that tend to imply the impregnation and birth were "after thoughts" and never meant to be taken literally. But, my argument (as pseudo-Flick) of historicity is reasonable.

As stated, I tend to agree. But that does not detract from the possibility they are first person accounts. Additionally, it says something about the 5% of the canonical gospel comprising the beginning and nothing about the 95% remainder. It should be noted that this 5% in question is not written in the same style as the rest of the gospel… so you still have the other 95% to contend with, which is why I provided further evidence from this 95%.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

What's up Doc?

The title was "gospel of Luke - eyewitnesses".

Funny how you neglect the latter half of it: “The Jury is still out.” The only one drawing conclusions in this thread is you and Gregor.

Now, what you further failed to discern for whatever reason is that the individual took serious exception to my contention in another thread that the authors of the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses.

I still take serious exception to it because it cannot be demonstrated, and because at least some of the scholarly evidence places them right in the middle of first generation Christians.

One thing is clear from textual criticism is that Doctor X has an unhealthy attraction for garlic presses and a refusal to recognize that Luke wrote Lk-Acts between the hours of 10:30 and 10:47 A.M. in 54 CE--utilizing his well-documented powers of clairvoyance. Indeed, scholars plan to devote an entire day of the next meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature to his condemnation, excommunication, and burning at the stake. His feet also smell.

Wow. And to think you are the one wanting to talk about MISREPRESENTATION

Or, had he responded:

quote:

"Fine, all of the evidence overturns the belief that they were eyewitnesses. I am still not convinced but I understand why you are. The scholars still plan to have your "put to the question," however."

But that admonition would be whole-sale dishonest. Does some of the evidence overturn the belief that they were eyewitnesses. Certainly. Does all of it? Only if you are fundamentalist with an agenda.

That’s been my point all along. You contend that there is not an alternative viewpoint in the scholarship. But there is, and you sir, are wrong.

Flick

[Aoidoi]

Been following the thread with something between interest and bemusement. A couple comments:

I posted above that it would be foolish to look at the author of Luke as an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus. I do not hold that view. I do think that evidence exists that shows the author of Luke was a contemporary and eyewitness to the first generation of believers, and that as his own declaration states, he received credible information from them.And I believe what Dr. X is arguing (in his usual style ;))is that this means the author did not witness the events himself. Even if he talked to 1st hand witnesses, even if he incorporated their words, that still does not make the author himself an eyewitness.

Maybe my limited intellect doesn't allow me to follow the subtle nature of SFlick's arguing style. Because he quickly devolved into strange arguments over Luke as doctor, Luke as writing before Paul, Josephus as stealing from Luke, and etc. But does this relate in any way to the topic - if there is one?

Sure it does. It supports the theory that Luke used first person accounts while crafting his gospel.Which, as repeatedly mentioned, does not make him an eyewitness. Even if Luke cobbled together his entire gospel from eyewitness accounts without writing a single word himself, that still doesn't make him an eyewitness.

I think the whole argument here is that stamenflicker thinks Luke had access to eyewitness accounts and Doctor X doesn't care as it's not relevant to his assertion. :D

Wow. And to think you are the one wanting to talk about MISREPRESENTATIONUm, humor? Really, it's painful to debate someone who cannot recognize it as such.

[Gregor]

What SFlick continues to skip right by is that it a weak and unsupportable argument to say that Luke (in 96) relied upon first person witness who was there at the impregnation and birth.

If he agrees that both impregnation and birth location are myths - then his first post is a house of cards.

[stamenflicker]

And I believe what Dr. X is arguing (in his usual style )is that this means the author did not witness the events himself. Even if he talked to 1st hand witnesses, even if he incorporated their words, that still does not make the author himself an eyewitness.

By the letter of the law I'd be very close to agreeing with him in regards to Luke. Most especially regarding the birth narratives, and to a far lesser extent the "sayings" collection and passion narratives.

If this is his meaning, the discussion would be better shifted to Matthew or John, and deserving of another thread.

Which, as repeatedly mentioned, does not make him an eyewitness. Even if Luke cobbled together his entire gospel from eyewitness accounts without writing a single word himself, that still doesn't make him an eyewitness.

Agreed. But it certainly doesn't make him not a non-eyewitness either. The further the date is pushed back, the greater the chances. But then again, if it is the contention to demonstrate that Luke went around holding doors open for Jesus, or eating sandwiches with him, I would have needed to start a different thread than this one.

I'd be hard pressed to believe that X or Gregor either one accept evidence of even "eyewitness accounts" recorded in the gospel, especially after the continued refusal to acknowledge scholarship on the issue.

I think the whole argument here is that stamenflicker thinks Luke had access to eyewitness accounts and Doctor X doesn't care as it's not relevant to his assertion.

Then I would add his "assertion" is hardly relevant to the thread.


Gregor,

What SFlick continues to skip right by is that it a weak and unsupportable argument to say that Luke (in 96) relied upon first person witness who was there at the impregnation and birth.

The 96 date is assumed. Further that is accepted publication date of the canonical version. It says nothing about what Luke may or may not have gathered 40 years prior. The 96 date proves nothing, but instead assumes a great deal. I don't have a problem with that assumption, provided one does not adhere to it with fundamentalist passion in the face of contradictory possibilities that are supported by scholarship.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Aoidoi:

I think the whole argument here is that stamenflicker thinks Luke had access to eyewitness accounts and Doctor X doesn't care as it's not relevant to his assertion

Indeed.

Once again the statement that drove this was that the writers of the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses.

Period.

Since the individ [He has toned down his rhetoric.--Ed.] fine . . . since Stamenflicker has not offered this "scholarly support" otherwise the contention remains.

As noted, stating that the "jury is still out" does not make it so.

As for the other matter:

"Try, dear Zyrkov, to cultivate a sense of humor."

--J.D.

[Gregor]

While I tire of your vague refrain (i.e. scholarless "scholars suggest" argument), I set out the outline for your argument, but you chose to ignore it.

Please cite the the scholar who argues that through textural analysis, history, or otherwise that any reasonable, academic argument could be made that Mary told ___(please fill in the blank with a person or class of persons)___ that the holy ghost impregnated her. Then, how Mr. __?__ told Luke this story.

Please cite the scholar who argues that ___(please fill in the blank)___ was at the birth and then told Luke about the travel, tax, birth, and shepards.

Setting aside bald inerrancy types (ref: Evidence that Demands A Verdict), I've never read any scholar who says there is ANY EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (or consistent Paulian cross-reference) to believe historicity of virgin impregnation and tax, census in 'home' city, travel of a pregnant woman, Bethlehem, and shepards. The closest I ever read was Meiers saying "I can't defend it, but I take some things on faith." That's not a scholarly argument that the verdict is "out." That's an excuse - "I have no evidence, but I guess it's possible."

If you concede that no scholar claims that through textural analysis and history that he has EVIDENCE to support even a possible argument of the accuracy of divine conception and and a census, home city, and tax in 10 CE - then your entire thread is for *****. You started off arguing NOT that some other parts of Luke may be from trustworthy, second-hand, first century sources - but that the birth narrative is from trustworthy, second-hand, first century sources.

[stamenflicker]

You started off arguing NOT that some other parts of Luke may be from trustworthy, second-hand, first century sources - but that the birth narrative is from trustworthy, second-hand, first century sources.

Gregor,

I'll bother responding much to your blather except to say that if you read one of my posts above you will note that a huge majority of Josephus' material is taken second-hand from first century sources, most likely eyewitness. That doesn't seem to bother most folks.

I could care less if the narrative is historical or not. I don't particularly believe the tradition anyway. What I do care about are skeptic "posers" pretending to doubt everything except their own conclusions. You've not seen me argue for the historicity of anything. Nor have you seen me draw conclusions. What I have done, successfully I might add, is open the window of possibility. So sorry that clean air makes you nausous.

I find it extremely interesting that on a skeptic's board, I as a Christian am comfortable with the thought of my faith being a farce, while you and Doc as non-believers tremble at the thought that you might be wrong. All walls are built by fear and you've built a nice comfortable hedge within to live your life.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

As noted, stating that the "jury is still out" does not make it so.

Regarding the statement: Gospel of Luke, eyewitnesses? The Jury is still out -- which for the "slow" I must remind is the very topic of this thread -- remains fundamentally correct.

If you want to argue about a gospel author as the eyewitness [and if I now understand your position correctly, the only possible ones to fit your ever so comfortable definition will be Matthew and John], we should start a new thread. But I still remind you as I did Gregor, your seeming need for such is ridiculous given Josephus' reliance on second-hand eyewitness accounts. But we can play along for fun. I am rather enjoying this.
___________________________

So for the record in good taste, I offer four conciliatory statements:

1) a sincere apology for my tone, taken a bit to extremes it would appear, and no excuses allowed to the excessive beer and nicotine :)

2) an agreement with you, provided that you mean Luke was not the man who personally pulled Jesus' finger at the campfire after cooking beans;

3) a fundamental disagreement should you be meaning that no evidence supports Luke using eyewitness accounts; hitherto making point #1 completely null and void. :p

4) and a promise to at least try and give you a good thrashing regarding your claim in #2 with regards to the gospel of John, and to a lesser extent, Matthew... all of which I must save for a future thread-- Perhaps as early as this weekend.

See you there.

Flick

[Gregor]

Anyone reading SFlick's final reply will see that he has tacitly admitted that his entire argument on this entire thread has been crap. Pure, unadulterated crap.

He started off arguing for trustworthy, second-hand, eye-witness accounts for the impregnation and birth found in Luke. He argued that reasonable scholars have evidentiary support for this argument. He said the "jury was still out."

When challenged to cite a SINGLE bit of evidentiary support for this premise - he does what ?

. . . drum roll, please . . .

1. says "Josephus relied upon others" and
2. disclaims historicity of the impregnation and birth

That's it, folks.

SFlick has again been shown to be a BS artist - and a poor one at that
a pseudo-debater
a bush league intellect
a poor excuse for an apologist

Here endeth the lesson.

[Doctor X]

Oh my. . . .

I find it extremely interesting that on a skeptic's board, I as a Christian am comfortable with the thought of my faith being a farce, while you and Doc as non-believers tremble at the thought that you might be wrong.

Unfortunately, evidence indicates rather the opposite. Without scholarly evidence to support the argument against my contention that the writers of the Synoptics were not eyewitnesses, I am afraid I perceive the continued misrepresentation and changing of position as a rather desperate attempt to force historical accuracy on the texts.

Frankly, I care little for what "the answer" is; I care about the process. I would be quite pleased to find historical evidence "for" as much as "against." It is the process of the problem--the investigation--that intrigues.

I will return to this, though:

I as a Christian am comfortable with the thought of my faith being a farce. . . .

As stated [Plagerized.--Ed.] above, "all you need for a founding figure is a name and a place." Does anyone really need a text or a figure to support how they behave in the world? There are some who are so extreme, in my opinion, to deny that an actual Junior ever existed. I find that gets a little too conspiratorial! However, even those clearly opposed to any historicity in the texts--who would welcome the revelation that it was all made up by Cranston Snord of East Hoboken--do not therefore argue that "kill your neighbor" is the way to approach life.

Right:

Regarding the statement: Gospel of Luke, eyewitnesses? The Jury is still out -- which for the "slow" I must remind is the very topic of this thread -- remains fundamentally correct

Ipse dixit with a dash of argumentum ad hominem. Unfortunately, as stated, repeatedly, with some redundancy, NO EVIDENCE has been offered to support this. Indeed, Gregor has rather begged for this.

One can just as well claim that the "jury is still out" concerning a Flat Earth and quality country-western music. It is merely a slogan; a last gasp against the overwhelming force of reality.

If you want to argue about a gospel author as the eyewitness [and if I now understand your position correctly, the only possible ones to fit your ever so comfortable definition will be Matthew and John], we should start a new thread.

Whilst Jn is not generally included as a "synoptic gospel," the author would be included as another "not eyewitness." Regarding Mt, since he used Mk as a source, it rather dates him too late as it does Lk.

But I still remind you as I did Gregor, your seeming need for such is ridiculous given Josephus' reliance on second-hand eyewitness accounts.

Seems to the individual only. Josephus, recall, writes first hand accounts as well. Granted he may have "colored" his position a bit for his intended audience.

Interesting that neither Mk nor Jn do this.

Furthermore, as noted particularly in the references, both Mk and Jn suffer from misrepresentations of the Jewish community, for example.

Now:

So for the record in good taste, I offer four conciliatory statements:

1) a sincere apology for my tone, taken a bit to extremes it would appear, and no excuses allowed to the excessive beer and nicotine

I do appreciate that. While I strive at all times to maintain a tone "measur'd in manner and speech," I tend to respond in kind, particularly when I find tactics such as argument ad hominem. I hold no personal animosity, frankly, nor do I hold grudges.

Thus I will apologize if my tone has border'd "a trifle on the harsh side of strict."

2) an agreement with you, provided that you mean Luke was not the man who personally pulled Jesus' finger at the campfire after cooking beans;

That is all it was. Cue accordian!! [No "I Told You So Dance!"--Ed.] Right . . . sorry.

Now, Is There Evidence of Actual Eyewitness Account Used by Synoptic Authors or even Jn?

Depends. As Acts versus Galatians demonstrates, considerable "spin" existed even in ancient times. Frankly, I am unconvinced because of various problems.

Take Jn . . . please. . . . He seems to preserve a conflict or at least a questionable rivalry betwixt the Junior Gang and the Gang of John the Bather. He makes a very specific case of Jn subordinating himself to Junior and forbidding his followers to regard him as an equal to Junior.

Why? Mk and Mt and Lk all, in a way, have this subordination, but it is not that severe. All seem quite happy to slap the disciples around as fools--my favorite is the Markan repetition of the loaves 'n fishies with Junior flabbergasted that the disciples still "don't get it."

It seems Jn has some reason to stress this subordination. Did a rivalry actually exist? Was he sensitive to later commentators? Did he just make it up to further demonstrate the control Junior has on events which he stresses throughout his work?

I do not know.

Thus [ZZZzzzzzZZZzzzzzz.--Ed.] while Jn's account may respond to an "actual" event, I do not think sufficience evidence exists to make a conclusion.

3) a fundamental disagreement should you be meaning that no evidence supports Luke using eyewitness accounts; hitherto making point #1 completely null and void.

If I read this correctly, you will take considerable exception if I state I do not believe evidence supports Lk using eyewitness accounts?

Allow me a firm "probably." I remain unconvinced that his sources were ever "eyewitness." I welcome credible evidence to the contrary. Thus far, I have not seen it.

I have seen evidence against this. Events in Lk--as in the other Synoptics and Jn--serve rather literary purposes. Such mythmaking rather argues against a recording of an "eyewitness" account--particularly when the author does not claim them. Return to the opening, he does not specify the use of such. Now, even if he did, that in and of itself does not prove he actually had eyewitness accounts; however, I find the absence of the claim rather significant.

I would caution that the appropriate response to the above would not be a withdrawal of what I hope were sincere feeling, but a cogent and methodical presentation of the evidence.

4) and a promise to at least try and give you a good thrashing regarding your claim in #2 with regards to the gospel of John, and to a lesser extent, Matthew... all of which I must save for a future thread-- Perhaps as early as this weekend.

I try not to view debate in such belicose fashion. The purpose of debate is to uncover truth by revealing the weaknesses and strengths in positions. It is not about "winning" or "losing." Again I caution that if you wish to agrue that Jn or Mt were actual eyewitnesses, I will require evidence for this that also addresses the evidence against such a contention.

Nevertheless, it must wait for about a week and a number of days, for I shall no longer be in the country.

Slan!

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

Anyone reading SFlick's final reply will see that he has tacitly admitted that his entire argument on this entire thread has been crap. Pure, unadulterated crap.

Wrong. My argument stands strong in that there is evidence to support the idea that Luke used eyewitness accounts to write his gospel. You've not even bothered to debate that, you just troll around looking for opportunities to bash rather than engage in the discussion at hand.

He started off arguing for trustworthy, second-hand, eye-witness accounts for the impregnation and birth found in Luke. He argued that reasonable scholars have evidentiary support for this argument. He said the "jury was still out."

That remains a fact. Would you care to dispute it? Maybe use a source? Are should we just take your word for it?

When challenged to cite a SINGLE bit of evidentiary support for this premise - he does what ?

Let me tell you what I did since you obviously don't read my posts. I cited nearly two dozen articles and books from scholars supporting my claim.

says "Josephus relied upon others"

And I posted about 7 references from a Jewish sources supporting that as a fact. I can get 7 more, though would it really matter to you?

disclaims historicity of the impregnation and birth

And that remains my opinion, though it can hardly be deemed a scholarly conclusion.

As for the rest of your blather, may I again suggest you actually read my posts and make a valid point?

Flick

[Gregor]

SFlick
When you resort to outright lying by claiming you previously posted scholarly articles arguing for historicity of ghostly impregnation, I step off.

Good day
p.s. "thou shalt not bear false witness"

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

Reading is fundamental. That's what I hear anyway. My post only suggests that Luke used another source. Perhaps you would do well to take three deep breaths and call your 6th grade English teacher.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Doc,

I would caution that the appropriate response to the above would not be a withdrawal of what I hope were sincere feeling, but a cogent and methodical presentation of the evidence.

No, I was joking. However evidence for that claim exists on both sides of the debate. That's why I started this thread. Sorry if you've haven't "seen" it, but it is there. I don't personally have a dog in the fight, in that it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. What does matter to me is the idea that a person can fundamentally conclude this is not a possibility, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Assume all day, but never conclude. And I too have seen evidence to the contrary. But the weight of evidence seems relatively balanced on the issue-- with Luke perhaps a portion of it shifts your way, especially when one includes the nativity and a handful of other passages. I see those places as more the work of an editor however.

Flick

[Doctor X]

StamenFlicker:

What does matter to me is the idea that a person can fundamentally conclude this is not a possibility, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I am afraid I have yet to see this credible evidence to the contrary on the specific point of the writers being actual eyewitnesses.

Not yet gone . . . just packing. . . .

--J.D.

Dileas gu bas. . . .

Actually . . . shall be gone permanently. Will visit to collect the occassional "mail."

And like that! He's gone!

[Edited for the epithalamium.--Ed.]