Micky wrote:Do you simply take it upon yourself to stick your nose into every discussion that doesn't concern you? I asked Micky this question and he has not answered it, yet. Are you the designated crash dummy?
You asked yourself this question? I'm just confused now. Is there another poster here named Micky?
And by the way, if you want to have a private conversation, you should probably utilize the private messages function Dr. Shades has provided us. This is a public forum and unlike CARM, people are free to post where they like (I believe).
GoodK wrote:Only because there are some that were probably real people. I don't think we really know who the gospel writers are.
Ancient historians wrote about people who were imaginary as though they were real. I don't see how the fact of the author's existence necessarily strengthens the case for the historicity of his subject.
Well, you asked me why these historians were better evidence than the gospel writers,
Trevor wrote:Why are these historians better evidence than the gospel writers? Simply because they are writing in a different genre?
and I think that real authors are more reliable than unknown authors. I don't think the gospels should count as evidence at all.
But for the record, I never said and I still don't believe there is evidence for a historical Jesus.
Doctor Steuss wrote:I think one “evidence” that often gets overlooked (and one that Don Bradley pointed out to me many moons ago) is Paul’s reference to James (“the brother of Jesus”). Of course, this doesn’t stand if someone also takes the leap to “Paul didn’t exist either."
Trevor wrote:Really, the whole idea that there is absolutely nothing behind Jesus seems far-fetched, even to me. But, I am not certain exactly how much actual history it would take to provide the bare bones of a Gospel narrative. I guess all one would really need is the story of a minor holy man who was executed by Roman authorities. What I cannot agree with the "mythers" on is the importance of "dying and rising gods"--Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Osiris and the like. All of that smacks too much of the "Golden Bough" nonsense that is completely outdated. What historical Jesus people fail to appreciate, however, is the degree to which even major figures like Roman emperors were shaped as historical figures by myth, legend, drama, rhetoric, and sheer fantasy.
GoodK wrote:and I think that real authors are more reliable than unknown authors. I don't think the gospels should count as evidence at all.
Well, all of these documents were written by somebody. I am still not sure what makes a known somebody that much more credible than an unknown somebody, unless you are somewhat sure that the unknown somebody was passing off a literary fraud. Are you calling the gospels pseudepigrapha?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
GoodK wrote: and I think that real authors are more reliable than unknown authors. I don't think the gospels should count as evidence at all.
Well, all of these documents were written by somebody. I am still not sure what makes a known somebody that much more credible than an unknown somebody, unless you are somewhat sure that the unknown somebody was passing off a literary fraud. Are you calling the gospels pseudepigrapha?
Well, in this case I would say that a known somebody can be examined more carefully than an unknown. If we knew who the writer was, we would be able to know for certain whether the author knew what he was talking about. In the case of Josephus and his writings, we know that he would not have referred to Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and would have not used the word Christ or Christian. I think we know this ONLY because we have information about Josephus. If we knew more about the authors of the Gospels, we would probably be able to examine them more carefully, in my opinion.
I do think that the gospels fall under the category of pseudepigrapha.
GoodK wrote:Well, in this case I would say that a known somebody can be examined more carefully than an unknown. If we knew who the writer was, we would be able to know for certain whether the author knew what he was talking about. In the case of Josephus and his writings, we know that he would not have referred to Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and would have not used the word Christ or Christian. I think we know this ONLY because we have information about Josephus. If we knew more about the authors of the Gospels, we would probably be able to examine them more carefully, in my opinion.
I do think that the gospels fall under the category of pseudepigrapha.
It would certainly help us know more about the texts, but I wonder whether it would make them any more or less legitimate. Maybe, but maybe not. After all, religious claims are religious claims.
I am pretty much with you on the pseudepigrapha thing.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
GoodK wrote:and I think that real authors are more reliable than unknown authors. I don't think the gospels should count as evidence at all.
Do you think that the writer of Luke/Acts is an unknown author?
Yes I do.
What are the important things we don't not know about Luke?
I'll have to spend more time on this question, but before I do, who wrote Luke/Acts? Can we agree that the authorship is unknown?
The chief source for our knowledge of the primitive church is the anonymous treatise known as the Acts of the Apostles, which now stand s in the NTY as an appropriate link between the preceding four Gospels and the following 21 letters. Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author. According to early tradition this was Luke, a physician and companion of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14, II Tim. 4:11; Philemon. 24). From the way in which Paul mentions Luke, seeming to differentiate him from those who are Jewish background (Col. 4:11 compared to verses 12-14), it appears that Luke is of Gentile birth. If so, he is the only known Gentile whose writings are included in the Bible. According to a tradition preserved in a second-century prologue to the third Gospel, Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch.
Bruce Metzger, The New Testament its background, growth and content, 170.