I think that there are two stridently opposing sides with too much invested in the question to have a meaningful discussion. The evangelical apologists want the gospels to essentially reflect eye witness accounts, and the mythicists want to discredit any possibility of such a thing. Any attempt at a discussion is further hampered by genuinely uncertain sources and events (for which the void tends to get filled with whatever suits one’s needs).
Robert said
In the middle are mainstream critical scholars who simply tell it like it is within the parameters of what can be actually known.
But they are also going to have to allow some straying into reasonable speculation, within what is known, as long as it is presented for what it is. For example, I am not aware of an strong case that says that the gospels cannot be a product, in part, of traditions that would have some connection to the names ascribed, even if it is quite clear that the names ascribed cannot reasonably be the actual authors.
My personal inclination is to side with mainstream reputable scholars in disputed questions, but even then the best I think they can say is that their conclusions only rise to the level of “more probable than not” that, for example, a certain book was written before or after another book, or that the historical Jesus did or did not say or do some particular thing. Of course there are different degrees of “more probable than not” based on the strength of the underlying evidence, but we cannot (or at least should not) assign numerical values to these probability determinations. I used to find Carrier interesting, but he lost me when he claimed to use “Bayesian reasoning” to conclude that there was only a 30% probability (approximately … I don’t recall his exact number) that there was an historical Jesus.
The only situation in which I am inclined to take a strong stance is when a claim is contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them, but even then I have to concede that we may not understand these laws correctly, and we certainly don’t understand them completely.
In short, epistemic humility is necessary in all these discussions. If someone does not demonstrate that, I tend to disregard all of their claims.
Robert said
brenmcg said
You’re denying both that the master copies all had the same name and also that the master copies had differing names?
Which one is supposed to be part of your explanation? Did these master copies have the same name or differing names?
No, I’m not denying or affirming either of your formulations that are based on your unwarranted assumption(s). We do not know what the master copies of any of the many scribes contained. We only know what the trend was toward what eventually became the most prevalent text tradition.
I claimed it was historically inconceivable that the names of the gospels were added only after they had spread throughout the empire.
I’m not sure what you’re claiming? That the master copies of the scribes had names attached to them and eventually one of these names won out for each gospel?
If that’s what you’re arguing you’re not disagreeing with me on that point. Do you think the gospels were passed around anonymously for generations before anyone added any names to them?
jakejones said
Why did everyone agree on the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
are you sure about that ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I don’t see anything in that link the disagrees with me? Is it just that not everyone assigned names to the gospels? The point is no-one assigned alternative names to them.
Robert said
Your historical claim ignores the reality of what actually happens in text traditions, but that’s not worth arguing about unless and until you start studying text critcism, specifically the growth of the Majority text.
We simply do not know how early any of the common ascritptions first appeared in manuscripts, but there’s no evidence or any good reason to assume it was very early. Nor do I assume that one name would have won out over other names being ascribed to the same gospel. That there would have been other names to be defeated is a pure assumption on your part, as I’ve already indicated numerous times.
So you have no opinion on whether or not the names were added only after the gospels were circulated throughout the empire? We just don’t know?
So you’re not disagreeing with my claim that names being added only after their circulation and then being universally adopted is ridiculous?
Robert said
You’re not quite understanding what I’ve been saying. I have plenty of opinions, but have advanced no specific claim of my own, just followed the critical scholarship of others. The best scholarly opinion seems to be that the ascriptions would probably have been added starting sometime in the 2nd century, perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd century for Mark and Matthew, perhaps mid- to late-2nd century for Luke and John. There’s no way to be more precise than this.Your claims, on the other hand, so far have merely been unfounded assumptions, eg, ignoring how the text tradition actually works and presuming that there must have arisen multiple competing ascriptions if they were not earlier. I do not agree with your unfounded claims.
We’re discussing a hypothetical situation in which four anonymous gospels have been copied and circulated throughout the empire. I’m not sure if you’re attempting to offer an explanation (your own or someone else’s) for how the four canonical names were propagated and subsequently accepted by all Christians?
Are you just not accepting the possibility of this hypothetical situation?
I think it is very interesting to see the extra problems inherently posed by the passing of time. I mostly do textual criticism for Poe, so chiefly the first half of the 19th century (extending a bit as we get into later scholarly editions). There are special issues, but we have a lot of material to work with. Shakespeare scholars working on texts have the problem that there are no manuscripts, and only a variety of printings of somewhat dubious authority, mostly done after Shakespeare’s death. (And they have the perennial hobgoblin of whether or not Shakespeare really wrote the works attributed to him.) As for Poe, there are also questionable attributions. With texts that go back so much further, I am not at all surprised that the problems are magnified, with the added complications of historical and religious implications. The one thing that does not seem to change is the sense of certainty that some feel in asserting their speculations.
Stephen said
I mentioned this in one of the other threads but I wonder if the composer of gMatthew knew who wrote the gospel of Mark? Or did he use it completely divorced from its original context? (Like us!)
There’s zero evidence that he did. The author of Matthew does not even acknowledge he was using another gospel as his basis. His goal was different than that of gospel he had and he wanted to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish scripture. It would not surprise me if he wanted his gospel to completely replace “Mark” as the sole gospel of Christianity.
brenmcg said
Robert said
You’re not quite understanding what I’ve been saying. I have plenty of opinions, but have advanced no specific claim of my own, just followed the critical scholarship of others. The best scholarly opinion seems to be that the ascriptions would probably have been added starting sometime in the 2nd century, perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd century for Mark and Matthew, perhaps mid- to late-2nd century for Luke and John. There’s no way to be more precise than this.
Your claims, on the other hand, so far have merely been unfounded assumptions, eg, ignoring how the text tradition actually works and presuming that there must have arisen multiple competing ascriptions if they were not earlier. I do not agree with your unfounded claims.
We’re discussing a hypothetical situation in which four anonymous gospels have been copied and circulated throughout the empire. I’m not sure if you’re attempting to offer an explanation (your own or someone else’s) for how the four canonical names were propagated and subsequently accepted by all Christians?
Are you just not accepting the possibility of this hypothetical situation?
There was a problem in early Christianity of many “gospels” being written. At some point the early church needed to decide which ones they would consider authentic and ascribe to them authority. The first to do so that I know of was Irenaeus.
Irenaeus, the leader of a church in France in about the year 170, declared that “The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don’t have any gospels that aren’t full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus’ true followers.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **.
brenmcg said
I claimed it was historically inconceivable that the names of the gospels were added only after they had spread throughout the empire.
I’m not sure what you’re claiming? That the master copies of the scribes had names attached to them and eventually one of these names won out for each gospel?
If that’s what you’re arguing you’re not disagreeing with me on that point. Do you think the gospels were passed around anonymously for generations before anyone added any names to them?
Why do you find it historically inconceivable? The first Christians weren’t concerned about the authors of the gospels, only the message.
cstu said
Stephen said
I mentioned this in one of the other threads but I wonder if the composer of gMatthew knew who wrote the gospel of Mark? Or did he use it completely divorced from its original context? (Like us!)
There’s zero evidence that he did. The author of Matthew does not even acknowledge he was using another gospel as his basis. His goal was different than that of gospel he had and he wanted to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish scripture. It would not surprise me if he wanted his gospel to completely replace “Mark” as the sole gospel of Christianity.
But why would Matthew have depended so heavily upon a text if he had no idea of its trustworthiness?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)