Dating the Gospels

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JAK wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Why would "scholars" ignore the possibility that Paul and others wrote simultaneously? When, for example, President John Kennedy was assasinated, a flurry of writings were produced by various authors reviewing the event. Why is that same possiblity completely discarded in the case of Bible scripts?

You tell me.

Jersey Girl

--------------

What makes you consider that “scholars ignore”? Scholars from the Roman Catholic Church have quite different views (scholarship) than scholars from the United Methodist Church. And scholars who are not committed to any religious doctrine/dogma have yet a different view of how things are in the world of religious doctrine.

Generally, the older the source is which is regarded as “original,” the less credibility it has. So a source hundreds or thousands of years in the past has less credibility than a video tape of an event which occurred yesterday such as the great winter storm of January 2007. That documentation has great credibility. It has peer review. It has multiple observers -- thousands of observers and photographers and commentators. The biblical writers have no such credibility regardless of claims made.

JAK


JAK,

What type of peer review would the Gospel's have been subject to? Can you think of any method in that time period that might meet the criteria for peer review?

Jersey Girl
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by _JAK »

Jersey Girl wrote:
JAK wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Why would "scholars" ignore the possibility that Paul and others wrote simultaneously? When, for example, President John Kennedy was assasinated, a flurry of writings were produced by various authors reviewing the event. Why is that same possiblity completely discarded in the case of Bible scripts?

You tell me.

Jersey Girl

--------------

What makes you consider that “scholars ignore”? Scholars from the Roman Catholic Church have quite different views (scholarship) than scholars from the United Methodist Church. And scholars who are not committed to any religious doctrine/dogma have yet a different view of how things are in the world of religious doctrine.

Generally, the older the source is which is regarded as “original,” the less credibility it has. So a source hundreds or thousands of years in the past has less credibility than a video tape of an event which occurred yesterday such as the great winter storm of January 2007. That documentation has great credibility. It has peer review. It has multiple observers -- thousands of observers and photographers and commentators. The biblical writers have no such credibility regardless of claims made.

JAK


JAK,

What type of peer review would the Gospel's have been subject to? Can you think of any method in that time period that might meet the criteria for peer review?

Jersey Girl


----------------------
The point is credibility and how time can erode credibility. Your question is a different issue than the one I addressed.

The farther from an event the report, the less likely the report is to be accurate. Detail is lost, independent observation is missing, and there is no way (as you recognize) to facilitate objective analysis.

Biblical writings were never subjected to “peer review.” They were subjected to the very few who could copy or read. But they were also under the control of the power structures from Constantine forward.

That debate on what was included, what was excluded, or what was revised for special needs can't be reconstructed.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: SWAGs

Post by _JAK »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:What about dating the Gospel's by content?


Because each of the Gospels describe events that took place in the past. Since none of them specifically state the year in which they were written, we have no idea how far in the past the events took place that the gospels were writing about. (For example, was the writer of the Gospel of Mark referring to events 10 years previous or 50 years previous?)


Well, Shades, I think that we can get somewhere if we view the Gospels as historical snapshots. For example, judging by the content of the following photo, what is the latest date you could reasonably assume that it was taken?

Image

------------------------

I like this illustration Jersey Girl.

How long have we had photographs?

There were none in biblical times. Almost no one could read or write. So, we’re left with the language (vocabulary) of a very limited few. We are also left with that same limitation with regard to the reading of what was written. But the photo of the NYC skyline is very, very close in time to us. We know how it was obtained and from where it was taken (roughly). Furthermore, many, many people saw just what the photo shows at a point or several points in time. Further, there are many other photos of similar subject matter taken by thousands of people.

That’s documentation. But your characterization of the gospels as “historical snapshots” has no genuine parallel to the photos of the NYC skyline. The comparison is a pretense at similarity.

I am sure that those who want to believe the Bible want to perceive there is somehow a genuine parallel to photographs and accompanying commentary, but it’s a false comparison.

Surely, you can recognize that.

Portraits of people prior to photographs were what we have from the best artists who were paid to make portraits of the most famous/wealthy/powerful just prior to the actual invention of the camera. We still have portraits. But we also have photographs from which artists can work as opposed to the subject sitting or standing for hours to have a portrait made.

There is no parallel in ancient writings of 2,000 years in the past which can match multiple capture of what was as there is in your illustration of NYC.

I’m glad you used it. It demonstrates vividly the difference between verified “picture” we can view today with the absence of that verification in ancient religious scripts.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by _JAK »

Gazelam wrote:Faith comes by hearing the word of God through the testimony of the servants of God. Take that testimony and witness of the spirit, and work upon it through prayer and obedience to gospel principles.

A testimony should be based upon the witness of the Holy Ghost. Arceheology, scripture, and commentary can be used to help support a testimony, but they are never intended to be the basis of a testimony.

------------------
This hardly seems to have reliability. People of various religious positions have very different views. A dart board would be as reliable as your suggestion.

United Methodists don’t hear the word as do the Amish. And neither hear the word as do the Roman Catholics. Someone is hearing it [i]wrong[/b]. And we might conclude all are hearing it wrong.

Absence of agreement and lack of consensus on “the word” or what it means or how it should be interpreted makes for zero reliability for any claim.

Likewise, “prayer” is different for different religious persuasions. Muslims pray. They don’t pray like Baptists or Mormons.

There is absolutely no supporting evidence for a claim of “Holy Ghost.” Religious mythology is unreliable, and terms like that are clearly religious mythology.

“Testimony” can be whatever anyone wants it to be. It’s made up. A group of people in agreement contrast with another group of people who see/perceive religion differently.

A claim does not equal correct.

Merely believing something -- anything does not make it correct regardless of how sincerely it may be believed.

JAK
Post Reply