Gospel sources, "Q"

[jmcrae]

why don’t you accept the Koran as truth?

Because it wasn’t produced by the Catholic Church.

 

[buffalo]

meh, I don’t really care enough to do any more than a quick google search.

If you do not even care to be interested in finding the truth why even post here? What is your agenda? It is not to learn.

 

[buffalo]

Yeah, I deny the authenticity of the holy scripture. I really have no idea what actually happened with Jesus but I don’t just take the gospels as truth.

Without basis? That is irrational.

No sources? My my, this sounds like an “emotional” position.

 

[bingbang]

Without basis? That is irrational.

No sources? My my, this sounds like an “emotional” position.

I outlined why I don’t accept the gospels as truth in a post above.

 

[buffalo]

I outlined why I don’t accept the gospels as truth in a post above.

Yeah - pretty much - “I just don’t want to believe it”.

 

[bingbang]

Yeah - pretty much - “I just don’t want to believe it”.

lol, you choose not to believe the Koran and Bhagavad Gita. I guess you “just don’t want to believe it.”

And to be honest the reasons I have for not believing the gospels are pretty valid. I could turn it around on you and say that your reasoning is:

“I just want to believe it.”

 

[Erich]

Yeah, I deny the authenticity of the holy scripture. I really have no idea what actually happened with Jesus but I don’t just take the gospels as truth.

Not to derail the thread, but… from Proving Inspiration:

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

 

[scottm]

The problem with Markan priority is that the evidence can also be interpreted to indicate the Patristic Tradition as being correct. Support of Markan Priority indicates a bias influenced by Darwinism.

**Yes!! That is in fact what I did for a graduate-level term paper. I took the top dozen arguments for Markan priority and demonstrated with clarity that every single one of them supports the traditional Matthew-first position. **

**Markan priority exists for one reason only: subjective bias for it. There is absolutely no objective support for it whatsoever. I read the journals! I read the books! I know what their arguments are! **

**It’s nothing more than, “I like strawberry ice cream. Therefore strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.” **

 

[scottm]

The Synoptic Problem by Farmer is a book that refutes Markan priority but gives a history of the synoptic problem. Most of my info on the Synoptic problem comes from lecture notes in some of my classes, which so far have not been in-depth discussions of the Synoptic Problem. It gets discussed briefly, but is not the focus of the course.

Aye, Farmer. And this one walks you through the history brilliantly, exposing all the biases behind the demise of patristic tradition.

amazon.com/History-Synoptic-Problem-Composition-Interpretation/dp/0385471920

 

[StTommyMore]

lol, you choose not to believe the Koran and Bhagavad Gita. I guess you “just don’t want to believe it.”

And to be honest the reasons I have for not believing the gospels are pretty valid. I could turn it around on you and say that your reasoning is:

“I just want to believe it.”

Actually, I have already shown why your reasons for not believing aren’t very valid at all.

 

[TMC]

Actually you are incorrect. The Q hypothesis became popular until the 1870’s. Darwin was born in 1809. It really took off in universites during the “Kuturekamph” (culture war) in Germany in an attempt to solidify German loyalty to Germany and not to the papacy.

It may have “really taken off” in the 1870s, but it was put forth by theologians much earlier than that, well before Origin of Species. How could the Q theory have resulted from Darwinism when it predates Darwinism?

 

[bingbang]

Not to derail the thread, but… from Proving Inspiration:

I have read all the arguments. I still don’t accept the gospels as truth. I think there is just too much room for error. We don’t know who wrote the gospels, we don’t know when the gospels were written, and we don’t know the sources for the gospels…and we don’t even have original copies. And a lot of the early copies we do have differ from one another, either adding or leaving out certain passages. There is just sooooo much room for error.

Most of the world doesn’t accept the gospels as truth just like most of the world doesn’t accept the Koran as truth.

 

[bingbang]

Actually, I have already shown why your reasons for not believing aren’t very valid at all.

lol, no you haven’t. If your reasons to believe the gospels as truth were so strong then wouldn’t every rational person in the world be Christian or Catholic? And you realize that probably 75% of this board would have been a faithful Muslim if they were born in Saudi Arabia instead of the Western world (and 75% is probably a conservative estimate).

 

[StTommyMore]

I have read all the arguments. I still don’t accept the gospels as truth. I think there is just too much room for error. We don’t know who wrote the gospels, we don’t know when the gospels were written, and we don’t know the sources for the gospels…and we don’t even have original copies. And a lot of the early copies we do have differ from one another, either adding or leaving out certain passages. There is just sooooo much room for error.

Most of the world doesn’t accept the gospels as truth just like most of the world doesn’t accept the Koran as truth.

We know that the Gospels were written by who it is attributed.

 

[StTommyMore]

lol, no you haven’t. If your reasons to believe the gospels as truth were so strong then wouldn’t every rational person in the world be Christian or Catholic? And you realize that probably 75% of this board would have been a faithful Muslim if they were born in Saudi Arabia instead of the Western world (and 75% is probably a conservative estimate).

I debunked your argument by providing a reasonable explanation

 

[bingbang]

We know that the Gospels were written by who it is attributed.

No you don’t. You can say you know who the gospels were written by but it is FAR from unanimous. The question will likely never be answered.

 

[TMC]

I have read all the arguments. I still don’t accept the gospels as truth. I think there is just too much room for error. We don’t know who wrote the gospels, we don’t know when the gospels were written, and we don’t know the sources for the gospels…and we don’t even have original copies. And a lot of the early copies we do have differ from one another, either adding or leaving out certain passages. There is just sooooo much room for error.

Most of the world doesn’t accept the gospels as truth just like most of the world doesn’t accept the Koran as truth.

I understand your position. I hope you realize that the same is true for everything that we know about Plato, Socrates, Caesar and all the rest of the ancient historical figures. There is room to rationally doubt many of the details of the Gospels, but surely you would agree that the fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure is as well attested as the fact that most of these other ancient historical figures existed? If so, would you agree that the Gospels likely provide at least some information about him? How far does your unbelief stretch?

 

[bingbang]

I debunked your argument by providing a reasonable explanation

No you didn’t. All you said was that it could have been from two events, which I believe to be unlikely. Why would Jesus use the same exact wording and mean two totally different things? It just doesn’t seem to make sense. Why would he use words literally in one speech and use the same exact words figuratively in another.

And you reason for not believing in the Koran because it conflicts with the Bible is as valid as me saying that I don’t believe in the Bible because it conflicts with the Koran. It is a completely nonsense answer.

 

[bingbang]

I understand your position. I hope you realize that the same is true for everything that we know about Plato, Socrates, Caesar and all the rest of the ancient historical figures. There is room to rationally doubt many of the details of the Gospels, but surely you would agree that the fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure is as well attested as the fact that most of these other ancient historical figures existed? If so, would you agree that the Gospels likely provide at least some information about him? How far does your unbelief stretch?

I think that Jesus did exist and that he was an extremely profound and great teacher. I don’t really know about the resurrection and miracles and things but I do a lot of his moral teachings probably went back to him.

 

[Erich]

We know that the Gospels were written by who it is attributed.

We don’t have the original writings of many of the Apostolic Fathers, either… but (like the Gospels) we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, written by folks like:

Papias (c. 60-139) – whose life span overlapped that of the Apostle John by 30-40 years. Papias was the bishop of Hieropolis (about one hundred and fifty kilometers from Ephesus along a good surfaced road), so contact with the Apostle John would have been easy.

An extract from the fourth book by Papias and preserved by Eusebius reads:

And this the Presbyter used to say: “Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord’s sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them”. This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthews this was said: “For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able”`.
((EH 3: 39, 8 and RO 166r)).

Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostles words in defense of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So the poor Greekof Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract,… the Presbyter used to say, being in the plural, shows that aspects of Marks gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against criticism.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) – whose last years were spent in Ephesus, where the elderly members of the community would certainly remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town.

In his Dialogue with Trypho published between 161-165, Justin quotes from Matthew and Luke referring to them as, “the teachers who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ”. He writes of the memoirs composed by the apostles which are called Gospels. He specifically attributes the Apocalypse to John the Apostle. He knew the Septuagint well, and used the same version that had been used by Matthew. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, frequently uses the phrase the memoirs of his apostles [note: plural] and others who followed him, as the source of his quotations ((JMD ch. 98-107 and RO 122)). So Justin accepted that apostles had written at least two of the Gospels.

Irenaeus (born about 120 AD near Smyrna) – who as a young man frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna, who was himself also a disciple of the Apostle John.

In the first chapter of his third book in the series known as Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus records that the apostles of Christ preached the Gospel verbally. He then continues:

Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).

This quotation above comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate.