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

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” [in 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

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.

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]

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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--

Quote:

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:

Quote:

Admittedly, it's a mess... *snip*

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

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]

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

And thus your claim supports either of us.

No.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Most likely after Mk. . . .

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!"

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Yet:

Quote:

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

"Experts"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

. . . 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.]

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

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,

Quote:

You are a joke X.

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

Quote:

An Anheuser Bush league scholar.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

. . . 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Post any references?

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

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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. . . .

Quote:

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.]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Could you compose a cogent sentence?

Approved by "Hooked on Phonics?"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The jury is still out.

An imaginary jury perchance.

Quote:

. . . 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

. . .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.]

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

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

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

Quote:

degerates

Is that a typo, or are you demonstrating your vocabulary again?

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



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

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. Stčve, 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. . . .

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

See above.

Of course, I encouraged this before:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

You totally have missed my points about the experts.

No point was made other than argumentum ad hominem.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

[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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Ipse dixit--provide the evidence.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I do not accept the 120 date, . . .

Scholarly journals await his revelation.

No?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Mark is also missing a beginning.

Ipse dixit.

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

Quote:

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!!"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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. . . .

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

. . . 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.

Quote:

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.

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

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

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.]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Not at all.

Quote:

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

Sure. . . .

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Have I not proven such?

See above.

--J.D.

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

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

. . . 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?"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.]

Quote:

The same claims are made continuously of Josephus.

More fallacy follows with some blubbering. . . .

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?"

Quote:

Whose the Liar now?

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

Quote:

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.]

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:

Quote:

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.

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.