Judas betrays. Peter denies. James and John, the sons of thunder, wanted to rain down fire and brimstone. The gospels are politically distorted. Marcion group texts originally condemned the 12 apostles and supported Paul as the leader of the Church. The disciples/Matthew against Marcion/Paul then create the Peter forgiven and reinstated, James and John are beloved, and Judas was replaced with Matthew by the authority of the apostles.
Matthew is a name that means disciples. It was authored by the disciples, not the replacement of Judas in Acts 1.
Mark doesn’t have Judas as the betrayer and the event doesn’t occur. That suggests that Mark was written before Matthew before that detail was thought of.
0) a whole lot of myth and story telling.
1st) Marcion gospels (first century)
2nd) Disciples rewrite the Marcion gospels as Mark/John and Matthew/Luke
(second century)
3rd) nobody, the Marcion/Paul group and Peter/Apostolic Father group has enough time or manpower to form it all into one gospel. (second and third centuries)
4th) 4th century, Rome puts an end to all the political and theology crap with the mandatory Councils.
Porphyry, this is my final installment of answering your post 230:
“‘You seem to put more of a load on the layman than on the scholar.’ I don’t see why you say this.”
I can understand why you might be struggling to understand my point here. Let me make it clearer by offering a specific example. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but it may have escaped your notice or memory. In any case, I’ll make the point in this context and make it a little more elaborately.
In 2011, Bart wrote a book for lay readers titled: “Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.” Of course, “who we think they are” are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude – and we think that because those names came to us originally from ancient scholars. Bart’s book says the only one of these names that’s correct is Paul…and his name’s only correct half the time. In other words, Bart’s book declared the 7 so-called undisputed Paulines as the only ones of the 27 for which the author was known – and that modern scholars have thought this for over a hundred years. Although the name Eusebius shows up 23 times in his book and Augustine 15 (Athanasius is not mentioned at all), Bart never makes known to his lay reader that Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine, and other ancient scholars would take issue with his thesis – saying there was were at least 20 texts with undisputed authors. I’m not saying Bart had to agree with the ancient scholars – only that it was relevant enough to inform the lay reader. The lay reader’s only reasonable conclusion was that there was no substantive argument against what Bart was writing or else Bart would have mentioned it. Thus Bart leaves his popular readers with a false view of history – that the traditional names were no more than folklore, akin to Parson Weems saying George Washington said, “I cannot tell a lie” after being questioned about a felled cherry tree.
When I wrote about Forged for this reason the first time in this thread, Robert responded that Bart has written academically on this subject and that popular audience readers could read those books if they wanted more detail about what Bart thought of ancient scholarly views – but how was a lay reader going to know those books existed if Bart didn’t tell them? Not only that, those books are going to take more time to read, will be harder to read, and will be more expensive. Yes, lay readers might be able to navigate this difficult terrain, but why does the burden fall entirely on them? Now you begin to see why I say that the professionals make things harder on the layman than they should.
If Bart did not want to explain to a popular audience why they thought the authors were “who they think they are,” he did not have to write a popular book. But having written one, and especially since Harper markets well and pays their authors well, he owed his readers better than what he gave them. It’s obvious that he thought the idea that ancient scholars had any thoughts worth considering on the subject of his book was preposterous.
Robert, this is an answer to your question to me in post 240:
Mike, it is so incredibly obvious what Porphyry was asking. As he’s already explained, he’s using the order of the gospels as they currently and have for centuries customarily appeared in Bibles. 1st gospel = Matthew. Last gospel = John. I would think you might be able to understand the meaning of “customarily”.
You’re answering a question for which I don’t need an answer, and not answering a question for which I do need an answer (What exactly is it about book order that you’re asking me?)
Robert,
Regarding your post 246:
“Nothing personal, Mike, I don’t want to offend you,”
Good to know. Likewise, I don’t want to offend you.
“but it seems like you are having great difficulty here.”
Indeed, I am.
“I did not ask you a question in Post #240.”
I did not say that you did.
“More specifically, I also did not ask you a question about book order.”
I didn’t think you asked me a question about anything.
“You even quoted the entirety of my statement to you above.”
Yes, I did, but I don’t understand the problem with my doing that.
“Do you see a question mark there?”
No. Nor did I say that I did. Nor did I act like I did.
But let’s just forget about trying to unravel all that (because the discussion is getting more and more confusing for me) and instead just tell me what you were trying to accomplish with post 240? That is, you were inserting yourself into a conversation I was having with Porphyry, and I assume you were doing so because you thought you could help reduce or even eliminate my confusion about what Porphyry was asking me or telling me. How did you think your words could help me with that?
(Everything I have written here is sincere and in good faith. I’m just wanting to understand Porphyry’s question or point and your contribution to it.)
Robert, this is a response to your post 247:
“This is a dodge.”
The only thing I’m trying to dodge is a red herring. That will save both of us – not just me – time.
“You’ve made it abundantly clear, Mike, here and elsewhere that you believe the New Testament canon represents the early church’s correct judgment as to including all writings that are correctly attributed to apostolic authors or a couple of their associates and not including any writings that were incorrectly attributed to apostolic authors.”
Yes, I believe that.
“Or are you now claiming to have a different opinion?”
No, I’m not claiming to have a different opinion.
“Do you no longer claim that the New Testament books do not contain any pseudonymous or falsely attributed works? And that it correctly includes all writings correctly attributed to apostolic men?”
I have not changed my view on that, but I need to point out something that you may have forgotten. All these views you list here are peripheral to the interest of the question that leads this thread. These different beliefs that you mention have come up in passing – they’ve never been a focus of attention for me.
As for the article of Bart’s you posted, I have no access to it. All I have to go on is what you copied and pasted to the post. From those excerpts I took your point to me to be the timing of when the canon was fixed. It doesn’t matter to me. For purposes of this thread and for what I believe historically, I peg the finalization of the canon no more narrowly than “4th-5th century.” In fact, go back to my penultimate paragraph in post 10 where I use the term in a helpful context. Therefore, whether Bart thinks the canon was not fixed in 367 in Alexandria or anywhere else has no bearing on my thesis. I could have taken this long-winded way of saying that or I could do what I did, which is to state the matter as pithily as I could.
Robert, regarding your post 238:
I could find a way to agree with most of what you say in your first paragraph, but I don’t think any of it exonerates Bart.
As for your second very short paragraph, I stand by what I said. Bart did not show Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine the respect they deserved as fellow scholars of his – especially given that he was walking on their ground.
Robert, this is my response to your post 252:
“I was, once again, expressing my frustration with your refusal or unwillingness to answer questions or to not understand or acknowledge the relevance of questions.”
Just because I don’t share your views of what is and isn’t relevant to this thread does not necessarily make me wrong. Nevertheless, going forward I will try to accommodate some of your peripheral (in my mind) questions where I feel it might not take us too far astray.
“In addition to expressing my frustration, I was also providing you with the obvious interpretation of Porphyry’s question and his subsequent clarification of his question, that you still said you did not to understand. I spelled it out very clearly: In Porphyry’s question and clarification, 1st gospel = Matthew. Last gospel = John. Not chronologically, not referring to various orders of gospels in early manuscripts, but as “customarily” appear to today’s bibles as has been the case for hundreds of years. Are you still unable or unwilling to understand and answer’s Porphyry’s question?”
Unable.
“By the way, this is not a private conversation you are having with Porphyry; rather it is a public forum in which all members of the Readers Forum are free to read and interact with your posts.”
Agreed. I didn’t take you to be doing anything wrong in this regard.
“What is so difficult for you here? Is it perhaps related to another question you’ve long refused to answer: Why do you consider this issue controversial, when modern critical scholars and those familiar with their work do not consider it controversial? You’ve said it has nothing to do with your faith stance or your work in apologetics. So why is it controversial for you? Do you have some other reason to consider the work of modern critical scholars controversial? Is there some controversy about modern critical scholarship that I am unaware of? Or is there some other reason why you are finding this conversation so difficult here? Is there anything we can do to ease your difficulties here? Of course, anything short of simply agreeing with your assumptions?”
It is not a matter of whether or not I consider this issue controversial. That modern scholars disagree with ancient ones about seven of the New Testament’s eight putative authors is objectively controversial. If it wasn’t, Harper wouldn’t have agreed to publish ‘Forged.’
Robert, this is my response to your post 253:
“First, if you want to support your allegations against Bart, you have a responsibility to get access to it. Second, you certainly do have access to it, and for free. You need only visit a library or even sign up for some free service such as JSTOR. But if you’re unaware of all the possibilities of accessing the work of someone, perhaps you should refrain from false accusations and criticisms. Bart doesn’t need me to defend himself, and I have not particular reason to defend him. I myself disagree with him on some important foundational issues. But I will always defend anyone against unfair, uninformed, and false accusations. If someone did so against you, I would defend you just as strongly.”
My allegation against Bart had to do with what he left out of “Forged” – not what he wrote somewhere else. Therefore, I do not have to read some other book or article of his to declare and support my position.
“Again, you yourself have claimed here, “It’s authorship that ultimately determined canonicity” (20), so stop pretending like this is not a relevant aspect of the issue. I am not talking about the closing of the canon, but the evaluation by ancient writers of the character of writings long before the closing of the canon.”
What good is your promise to defend me against someone who accuses me falsely when you yourself accuse me falsely (e.g. “pretending”)?
“What you consider pithy, I consider avoidance of a comprehensive discussion of all of the relevant aspects of this discussion.”
This is a statement I can tolerate because in it you are not accusing me of anything; you’re just describing the difference in our views.
Robert, this is my response to your post 254:
“So you think Bart is guilty of what, exactly? Of contracting with a publisher to write a book for an audience that the publisher thinks is interested in purchasing, even if the desired content does not satisfy the interests of apologists? Or, if not that, perhaps you could clarify your accusation(s)?”
My accusation couldn’t be clearer. I’ve made it twice on this thread. Bart kept from his lay readers the critical fact that ancient scholars he repeatedly quoted as sources for his conclusion are on record as concluding very differently from him.
“Popularizing the insights gleaned from modern critical scholarship for a modern audience interested in modern critical scholarship is not the ground owned by ancient authors.”
On the contrary, it is their ground his book seeks to conquer. The title says it all: “Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.” It is an indictment of their judgment.
Paul says in Galatians 1 that the gospel is not of human origin, and he went to Arabia. Paul says that he himself is not of the human race. How then, can we disprove he didn’t go to Mount Sinai in Arabia, the mountain of the Lord? There he received the gospel just as Moses did. In that poetic sense he has now brought Mount Sinai back to Jerusalem, a feat greater than the pyramids of Gaza to fulfill Isaiah 2:2. Nobody else figured this out? Why?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)