It’s weird to see Bill trying to use credentialism.
Many describe it as a vision. It is worth mentioning that that is not the description in the Biblical text. Paul’s Damascus road experience appears in three different passages in the Acts of the Apostles. However, Ananias had a vision concerning Paul’s experience.
The issue of “first-hand witness” (primary source) versus historian/commentator (secondary source) is a very interesting tension. I had a Ancient Greek History professor who first brought this debate to my attention. Some people intuitively assume that a first-hand witness is the most reliable authority on an event. Others caution that such witnesses can be distracted or confused by the circumstances of an event, especially if they have an emotional investment. They place more credence on the “measured reflection” of the ancient writer who has collected reports from many sources and soberly (and objectively, hopefully?) weaved them into an historical record.
Whatever the merits of each position, that professor pointed out that most of what we know about ancient history comes from secondary sources.
2 Likes
Whatever. They guy he was seeing had died some years ago, so whatever you want to call it when someone sees a dead guy who no longer exists in bodily form on earth, it’s that.
No doubt. I am not saying that we need first hand accounts of an event to conclude it happened. Just that someone shouldn’t say there are first hand accounts of something for which there are none.
2 Likes
It is also worth mentioning that people often complain that the Apostle Paul said so little about the events of Jesus’ life recorded in the Gospels. I’ve never understood why that is an issue. Why would we expect letters to Christians of various churches around the Mediterranean to be devoted to such matters? The epistles were never intended to provide additional biographies of Jesus.
4 Likes
Understood. I simply brought up that issue because @colewd has asked me to address this general topic.
2 Likes
Gospel of John and Mathew are attributed by some to the Apostles. The writings of Peter of Jude are also.
How about you? Are you among the “some”? Why, in his first-hand account, did Matthew crib so much from Mark?
I don’t know. @AllenWitmerMiller do you have an opinion?
That is certainly true. Consider one such source, Homer, and the amazing things he wrote about how the Greek Gods interacted with the people during the Trojan war. Is there any reason why we don’t accept all that as historical?
2 Likes
I find it interesting that Pliny the Elder’s nephew, Pliny the Younger, wrote a description of the eruption that was questioned as dramatic licence until quite recently, when pyroclasic flow became better understood. Eruptions such as Vesuvius 79AD are now described as Plinian!
2 Likes
There are also some who believe Jesus never existed, and that he is all a myth.
The overwhelming scholarly consensus, however, is against both those beliefs.
1 Like
This needs careful support. You are making a very complex claim and you have very little knowledge.
The “scholarly consensus” needs to be defined.
For me this issue has very little to do with reliability of the Gospels and other Biblical writings. @AllenWitmerMiller do you have any additional thoughts?
Sproing! again.
No, it is a very simple claim: The vast majority of scholars on this issue, including those who are Christians, have concluded that the Gospels as we know them are based on older written and verbal accounts, and are not records of first-hand testimony. This is beyond any serious dispute. No great knowledge is required to know this, but it seems your knowledge is not at the required level.
Here, this should bring you up to speed:
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/synoptic-problem-faq.html
1 Like
What you cited did not support the claim you made. @AllenWitmerMiller any thoughts?
Which words here did you not understand?
1.9 What are the major solutions to the synoptic problem?
By far, the most widely accepted solution for the synoptic problem is the Two Source Hypothesis (2SH). However, two other proposed solutions have emerged as serious alternatives: the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) in America and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) in Britain. Other solutions that have attracted the attention of a plurality of scholars include the Augustinian Hypothesis (AH) and the Jerusalem School Hypothesis (JSH).
2. The Two Source Hypothesis
2.1 What is the Two Source Hypothesis (2SH)?
The 2SH adopts the Markan priority hypothesis for the triple tradition and the Q hypothesis for the double tradition. Accordingly, Mark was written first among the synoptics. Matthew and Luke independently copied Mark for its narrative framework (the Triple Tradition) and independently added discourse material from a non-extant sayings source called “Q” for German Quelle, ‘source’.
Despite recent challenges, the 2SH remains the dominant synoptic theory today among New Testament scholars for most of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Lately much attention has been devoted to studying Q and its own history of composition.
3.1 What is the Two Gospel (neo-Griesbach) Hypothesis (2GH)?
The 2GH adopts the Griesbach hypothesis for the triple tradition and the Lukan posteriority hypothesis for the double tradition. Accordingly, Matthew was written first, and Luke used it in preparing his gospel. Mark conflated the two in a procedure that mostly followed where Matthew and Luke agree in order except for discourse material. Thus, the triple tradition is a result of Mark’s editorial choices of what to include. The double tradition is that material which Luke liked in Matthew but not copied by Mark.
4.1 What is the Farrer Theory?
The Farrer Theory adopts the Markan priority hypothesis for the triple tradition and the Lukan posteriority hypothesis for the double tradition. In other words, Mark was written first, adopted by Matthew, and then used by Luke. The double tradition is explained by Luke’s further use of Matthew, thus dispensing with Q.
5.1 What is the Augustinian Hypothesis (AH)?
The AH adopts the Matthean priority hypothesis for the triple tradition and the Lukan posteriority hypothesis for the double tradition. Accordingly, Matthew was written first, and Mark used Matthew as a “lackey and abbreviator.” Luke, finally, used both Matthew and Mark to compose his own gospel. Thus, each evangelist depended on those who preceded him (successive dependence).
The AH was the traditional synoptic theory and was held by many Roman Catholic scholars until the mid-20th century. Now, support for the AH is trans-denominational but limited, including H. G. Jameson (1922), John Chapman (1937), B. C. Butler (1951), and J. Wenham (1992).
This is your claim. You can do a Gish gallop around the synoptic problem but that’s not your claim that you said you would have no problem defending.