The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 20, 2017 18:56:10 GMT
Well Paul wrote a good bit before the Gospels of course. And he's extremely vague on details - so much so that it allowed Carrier and others to say he was talking about a purely spiritual entity when he spoke of Jesus. You can disagree with the mythicists here, but you're still left with a source that's so vague about the historical Jesus as to be almost useless. Craig also believes there were at least 2 earlier sources that influenced the gospels: a source Mark used and the one used by Matthew and Luke (the hypothetical Q Gospel). There's no compelling evidence for these sources though. To me it seems more plausible that Mark was the first attempt to write about the historical Jesus. Matthew copied Mark and added a lot of his own stuff. And Luke copied Matthew, changing it as he pleased. I'm on the fence about John. I know some have argued it's a liberal reworking of Luke rather than the separate tradition from the synoptics. Not sure we know enough to say either way. But whatever, Craig's claim that we have several independent sources is iffy. Paul hardly counts since he's so vague. Craig's argument that the passion story is different enough from the style of the rest of Mark is evidence of it being a copy of an earlier source is plausible but hardly concrete. The existence of Q falls away if we allow Luke to have copied Matthew. And we have no real certainty John is independent at all. So all we can really say is we have one confirmed source for the historical Jesus - Mark's Gospel. There may have been other sources but this idea that there definitely were others and only crazies would argue otherwise is silly. I'm less doubtful about the purported source, Q than perhaps yourself. When scholars first began to study the gospels of the New Testament literarily, they discovered that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the core, sort of the basic story line that they tell. Because Mark is completely incorporated - 16 chapters - into both Matthew and Luke. But they both also used other sayings, parables, and stories and so forth. And scholars observed that there's a part of the sayings in Matthew that are exactly identical with sayings in Luke. In fact they're identical in Greek. Now think -- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So if you were translating Aramaic, and if I were translating Aramaic, they'd come out different, these translations. So you would only have Jesus speaking identical sayings in Greek if you had a written translation in Greek of his sayings. And so scholars suggest, reasonably I think, that there must have been, besides Mark, something else written down that would have been a list of the sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek. We can reconstruct it because we guess that there was such a written source. (There is no reason why Mark cannot also have a previous, now vanished source, since it appears to have been written in Greek and still does not appear as a contemporary, eyewitness account.) On this reckoning most likely wasn't a lost gospel, but the primary (?) source of the sayings of Jesus. For example, whoever collected the sayings of Q wasn't interested in the death of Jesus, wasn't interested in the resurrection of Jesus. They thought the importance of Jesus was what he said, what he preached. Then other people thought it wasn't enough to have the sayings of Jesus but wanted to tell about his Passion, as that was next the more important thing. So somebody put that all together and we call it Matthew, or Mark, or Luke. But it is still possible that one can identify a reason for the existence of the gospels as that of proselytizing to a purpose, as I suggested - where a need to overcome the risk of embarrassment with some approved narrative, one unsubstantiated, or even mentioned elsewhere, even by contemporary Jewish writers, was useful. The problem is this conception of Q doesn't hold up - Matthew and Luke agree on a lot more than just sayings, including details of the Passion story. Mark Goodacre is a Christian historian who makes a very good case against Q. A summary of his views is here: www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm Now Q might still exist but since it seems just as plausible or perhaps more so that it does not, Craig is clearly exaggerating how certain we can be of all these independent sources
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 21, 2017 8:53:49 GMT
I'm less doubtful about the purported source, Q than perhaps yourself. When scholars first began to study the gospels of the New Testament literarily, they discovered that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the core, sort of the basic story line that they tell. Because Mark is completely incorporated - 16 chapters - into both Matthew and Luke. But they both also used other sayings, parables, and stories and so forth. And scholars observed that there's a part of the sayings in Matthew that are exactly identical with sayings in Luke. In fact they're identical in Greek. Now think -- Jesus spoke Aramaic. So if you were translating Aramaic, and if I were translating Aramaic, they'd come out different, these translations. So you would only have Jesus speaking identical sayings in Greek if you had a written translation in Greek of his sayings. And so scholars suggest, reasonably I think, that there must have been, besides Mark, something else written down that would have been a list of the sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek. We can reconstruct it because we guess that there was such a written source. (There is no reason why Mark cannot also have a previous, now vanished source, since it appears to have been written in Greek and still does not appear as a contemporary, eyewitness account.) On this reckoning most likely wasn't a lost gospel, but the primary (?) source of the sayings of Jesus. For example, whoever collected the sayings of Q wasn't interested in the death of Jesus, wasn't interested in the resurrection of Jesus. They thought the importance of Jesus was what he said, what he preached. Then other people thought it wasn't enough to have the sayings of Jesus but wanted to tell about his Passion, as that was next the more important thing. So somebody put that all together and we call it Matthew, or Mark, or Luke. But it is still possible that one can identify a reason for the existence of the gospels as that of proselytizing to a purpose, as I suggested - where a need to overcome the risk of embarrassment with some approved narrative, one unsubstantiated, or even mentioned elsewhere, even by contemporary Jewish writers, was useful. The problem is this conception of Q doesn't hold up - Matthew and Luke agree on a lot more than just sayings, including details of the Passion story. Mark Goodacre is a Christian historian who makes a very good case against Q. A summary of his views is here: www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm Now Q might still exist but since it seems just as plausible or perhaps more so that it does not, Craig is clearly exaggerating how certain we can be of all these independent sources I take your point but it is clear that the issue is not settled, at least and arguments remain on both sides. But on the wider issue of the Gospels however, what is widely accepted is that none of the four are primary documents, which are conspicuous by their absence so there must have been something(s) before them, the unedited nature of which is impossible to deduce for sure; neither are M, M, L, J straightforward eyewitness accounts; while, as previous mentioned, the central most extraordinary events are nowhere substantiated by other contemporary accounts, away from what is essentially hearsay.
Consideration of the 'embarrassment criterion' is an interesting diversion, though at once it has to be admitted that what 'embarrasses' one person would not necessarily affect all, and what may seem a matter of embarrassment for later observers may be down to their own thin skins, rather than those purportedly put out in antiquity.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 21, 2017 9:09:26 GMT
I take your point but it is clear that the issue is not settled, at least and arguments remain on both sides. Oh absolutely. I lean against Q's existence but I wouldn't rule it out. Craig however takes it as established without question. He can't even make his usual claim that only crazy atheists with an axe to grind would argue otherwise when Christians like Goodacre dismiss Q. The way I see it there's 3 plausible scenarios: 1. There was one or more previous written accounts of Jesus that the Gospels based their stories on. 2. Tales of Jesus were passed down orally and Mark was the first person to try recording them as a narrative. 3. Mark's Gospel was an attempt to historicise the mystical Jesus of the epistles.
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the Gospels may have been based on a mix of written and oral traditions. And there may have been traditions of a historical Jesus pre-Mark even if no such man existed.
Since all of these are plausible though, Craig's declaration that there are several independent sources on a historical Jesus falls apart. He states that the following are all independent sources: 1. Paul 2. Mark's pre-Passion content 3. Mark's source for the Passion content 4. Q 5. John
My opinion is that 1 is too vague, the argument that 2 and 3 are independent is thin, 4 is dubious and 5 is problematic since there seems to be some influence from Luke.
Sure. I think maybe the criterion could maybe tip the scales if we were 50-50 on the evidence. But it's way too problematic to be a central feature of any historical argument.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 24, 2017 0:58:15 GMT
I've watched many debates and presentations by WLC and others on the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. There is reason to think it could've happened. But whatever happened didn't convince the Jews, who were there when it was supposed to have happened. And if the majority of them weren't convinced why should I be convinced?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 24, 2017 1:05:04 GMT
No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy" I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken.
The disciples weren't the only witnesses though, there was 500 at one time. What are the chances all these people were mistaken? There was a REPORT of 500 seeing Jesus. We don't have any info about those witnesses. It's like, "how do you know it happened?" "Someone said lots of people saw it." That's not an eyewitness account. Heck, the "report" might have originated as a dream that was repeated until someone thought it really happened. Besides, the report was to folks who lived hundreds of miles from where it supposedly happened...how could they have checked? Get a map and see where Corinth is relative to Jerusalem.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Apr 25, 2017 6:52:33 GMT
A primary source is an original study, document, object, or eyewitness account. In other words, this is the source where any given information first appeared. For instance, if a scientific study is performed, the primary source is the initial report that is prepared by the scientist(s) who performed the research. ☝️This is a better definition, Mr "I only believe stuff based on evidence or proof unless a scientist claims it" That's a terrible analogy. Nobody believes ground breaking research when it's first published (see STAP stem cells, bacteria using Arsenic instead of phosphorous, XMRV causes CFS.) It only becomes accepted as the scientific consensus when it's been repeated and corroborated multiple times by independent labs. BTW, Kiera has made several extremely pertinent posts about WLC's arguments, you haven't answered her ,why would that be?
|
|