T
- Status
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Does the author of that Introduction explain on what evidence he is basing his assertion that the Greek text “is in substantial conformity with the original”?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose the alternative is not to analyse the thing at all but merely read whatever interpretation that you want into the text without reading or analyzing what it says at all. Your prescribed method?
Q is entirely conjecture for which there is no real evidence. There are better ways of explaining the “synoptic problem,” which may not be the problem it has been purported to be.
Your dating of Luke is way off. Luke was a companion and co-worker of Paul whose letters and the material in them can be dated very early, perhaps to within a decade of the crucifixion. Luke mentions nothing of the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul (~64 AD) most likely because Acts was written before 64. Since the Gospel preceded Acts, it was very likely written in the early 60s or before. Many eye witnesses would have been available.
Shorter life expectancy does not mean everyone lived shorter lives, it means for the most part that a great proportion of people didn’t make it through infancy and childhood. Most who made it into adulthood lived relatively long lives, unless you were in the military.
Speaking of conjectures, your conclusions are full of them.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
According to Papias, then, what Matthew composed in Aramaic was a collection of Jesus’ sayings? Not a narrative Gospel dealing with the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, such as the four canonical Gospels we now know?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It COULD mean different things. One possibility was that Matthew, a tax collector, was literate and may have roughly recorded Jesus’ “sayings” as he followed Jesus around. These could later have been written up by Matthew in the more formal form of a Greco-Roman “life” or bioi. In other words, perhaps Matthew took notes. Why wouldn’t he, as a disciple who understood the value of putting things down on papyri?
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Is that what Papias says? If so, where? He certainly doesn’t say that in the one short sentence you quoted here: “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could.”
Last edited:
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
Pretty much everything you said is half true or untrue. In fact i couldn’t find a completely true statement in that. I think you select the evidence that supports your view and ignore the rest, a common but annoying human habit.
S
Spyridon
Guest
@po18guy I feel the need to reiterate.
The Church has made clear that so long as one holds that the Gospels are written primarily by the Holy Ghost, and that they faithfully preserve the Apostolic Preaching, one may hold various views about who the actual human author(s) were.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself has espoused the current views of biblical scholarship on many occasions.
Do you accuse His Holiness of being infected by modernism?
I personally believe all the traditional views of authorship: Moses wrote the Torah, Daniel wrote Daniel, John wrote John, etc. But I’m not willing to contradict the Church and say the views illustrated in the NABRE are heretical or modernist - they are not. They are legitimate theologumen - theological opinions.
The NAB never denies that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible or the Gospels aren’t accurate witnesses to Apostolic Preaching. They simply mull over the questions of human authorship.
The Church has made clear that so long as one holds that the Gospels are written primarily by the Holy Ghost, and that they faithfully preserve the Apostolic Preaching, one may hold various views about who the actual human author(s) were.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself has espoused the current views of biblical scholarship on many occasions.
Do you accuse His Holiness of being infected by modernism?
I personally believe all the traditional views of authorship: Moses wrote the Torah, Daniel wrote Daniel, John wrote John, etc. But I’m not willing to contradict the Church and say the views illustrated in the NABRE are heretical or modernist - they are not. They are legitimate theologumen - theological opinions.
The NAB never denies that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible or the Gospels aren’t accurate witnesses to Apostolic Preaching. They simply mull over the questions of human authorship.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And you make that observation based upon what? Your FULL knowledge of the whole truth?
Uh huh. Tell another half truth or untruth while you are at it, human!
Why not take one of my points and specifically address it instead of posturing from your Seat of Complete Truth up there beside the wonderful Wizard of Oz, looking down upon us annoying humans with our annoying human habits?
One of which just might be the proclivity towards pretentiousness
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It certainly doesn’t exclude that possibility, either.HarryStotle:
Is that what Papias says? If so, where? He certainly doesn’t say that in the one short sentence you quoted here: “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could.”
Are you looking for evidence that Matthew’s and the other Gospels fit the characteristics of the Greco-Roman genre called bioi or “lives” to a “T?” If so, you might read Richard Burridge’s or Richard Bauckham’s works on the subject.
You weren’t expecting that I would lay out the entire case in one post, were you?
Last edited:
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
Ok let’s try. You said:
Ok, i don’t know anyone sensible who thinks 50 is a ‘relatively long life’ given that life expectancy is 85 now. So in Jesus time, assuming i am 15 years old and have survived those death peaks at childhood that you correctly identified, what is the probability that i would live to be 50 years old?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Let’s address a previous point first. You said, “Most eye witnesses would have been very old by the time Luke was being written.” My response was that Luke was likely written in the early 60s based on the dating of Acts, the lack of any reference to the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul (-64 AD), the abrupt ending of Acts with Paul still in Rome, and the lack of any references to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), among other reasons. Given that Jesus ministry was between 27 and 33 AD, that would mean credible eye witnesses (aged 10+ at Jesus’ ministry and death would have been between 40 and 90+ when Luke was writing.HarryStotle:
Ok let’s try. You said:
Ok, i don’t know anyone sensible who thinks 50 is a ‘relatively long life’ given that life expectancy is 85 now. So in Jesus time, assuming i am 15 years old and have survived those death peaks at childhood that you correctly identified, what is the probability that i would live to be 50 years old?
I wouldn’t suppose MOST individuals who were eye witnesses would have been dead before reaching the age of 40+. Yet, you claim that most of them would have been very old or dead. Sure many would have been, but even if half were not, that would still leave plenty of eyewitnesses given the nature of his public ministry and the numbers of people who witnessed some event or other. Given that many of these people would have banded together in the early Christian churches, and likely repeated their stories often to keep the memory of Jesus alive, Luke could have had easy access to many of them.
Are you sure you’ve thought this through as well as you suppose?
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
There we have it, that’s why i said:
Because when you get asked a straight question, then you can’t give a straight answer. You just try and move the question back to your selective dating of Luke which is much earlier than the consensus of most scholars. You use nice and fluffy terminology to support your views, how about some actual facts - so again, if i am 15 years old in Jesus time, what is the probability i live to be 50? or 40 if you prefer?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
By statistical average, if 20-30% of individuals die in early childhood, to get a lifespan mean of 35 years, you need a similar percentage of individuals living to 70 years, or proportionately larger numbers of people living to lesser ages. Given that high death rates in childbirth and early childhood were a feature of ancient societies, that had to be offset by the number living well beyond the mean age.
I have read a number of articles to that effect. I don’t have them in easy reach, but will search when I can. I do have other more pressing things to do at the moment so it may be a while.
I have read a number of articles to that effect. I don’t have them in easy reach, but will search when I can. I do have other more pressing things to do at the moment so it may be a while.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
By the way, the consensus view of scholars is far and away “fluffier” and less grounded in “actual facts” than what I presented above. Why do you suppose the dating of Mark to around 70 AD is the fashion among modern scholars?There we have it, that’s why i said:
HarryStotle:
Because when you get asked a straight question, then you can’t give a straight answer. You just try and move the question back to your selective dating of Luke which is much earlier than the consensus of most scholars. You use nice and fluffy terminology to support your views, how about some actual facts - so again, if i am 15 years old in Jesus time, what is the probability i live to be 50? or 40 if you prefer?
What are the grounds for that dating? Please provide so we can assess how “actual” are those facts!
Last edited:
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
Since the child death rates were so high, all the available figures calculate average lifespan from a given point (e.g. 15 years) rather than birth, otherwise the figure would be meaningless. Therefore, you are factually incorrect in your statement. The population of the world in Jesus time that were over 70 was less than 2%.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
It’s the footnotes more than the translation that is the issue here. Simply put, the NABRE is the translation of the Bible that the USCCB has the copyright to.
J
James817
Guest
Didn’t the Apostle John die at 94 years of age?
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
Not sure, maybe he was part of the 2%.
- Status