Pesky Question #1 - Jesus and Nicodemus

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Doesn't mean they weren't the authors. Just because Romeo & Juliet does not have "A Play by William Shakespeare" following it doesn't mean it wasn't written by Shakespeare.

But if you found an unmarked play with no name attached would you attribute it to William Shakespeare just because it is a play or would you want more evidence?
Surely the tone of the gospels implies that the writers were not eye witnesses? Are there any verses in which the writer claims to have been present? Wouldn't one expect such verses if the writer was present?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if you found an unmarked play with no name attached would you attribute it to William Shakespeare just because it is a play or would you want more evidence?
Surely the tone of the gospels implies that the writers were not eye witnesses? Are there any verses in which the writer claims to have been present? Wouldn't one expect such verses if the writer was present?

But we're not talking about unmarked tomes, are we? We're talking about texts that were composed within communities, were publicly used in worship in those same communities and distributed to other similar communities.

John's Gospel does make claims to eye-witness testimony. But, even with the others, there are plenty of little details that point to an eye-witness source, if not eyewitness authorship.

Which reminds me, I was once told a nice trick by NT scholar Nicholas King (a Professor of Theology at Oxford) -- read through the Gospel of Mark but substitute "I" whenever "Peter" appears and "we" for appearances of "apostles", "disciples" etc. Mark becomes a much more engaging read.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But we're not talking about unmarked tomes, are we? We're talking about texts that were composed within communities, were publicly used in worship in those same communities and distributed to other similar communities.

Do you have more information on how the texts were publicly used in worship? Intrigued.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do you have more information on how the texts were publicly used in worship? Intrigued.

Pretty much the same way they're used now and pretty much the same way Jews used (and still use) the OT for readings.

I'll look up some scholarly references on the subject later.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But we're not talking about unmarked tomes, are we?

Actually we were.

We're talking about texts that were composed within communities, were publicly used in worship in those same communities and distributed to other similar communities.
Yet nevertheless unmarked in terms of authorship.

John's Gospel does make claims to eye-witness testimony. But, even with the others, there are plenty of little details that point to an eye-witness source, if not eyewitness authorship.
"...not eyewitness authorship" would imply the writer was not one of the 12 disciples would it not?

Which reminds me, I was once told a nice trick by NT scholar Nicholas King (a Professor of Theology at Oxford) -- read through the Gospel of Mark but substitute "I" whenever "Peter" appears and "we" for appearances of "apostles", "disciples" etc. Mark becomes a much more engaging read.
But does this in any way indicate that that was the original text which got modified? (Trying not to mind read here).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually we were.

[b]We're talking about texts that were composed within communities, were publicly used in worship in those same communities and distributed to other similar communities.
Yet nevertheless unmarked in terms of authorship.

John's Gospel does make claims to eye-witness testimony. But, even with the others, there are plenty of l hat that was the original text which got modified? (Trying not to mind read here).[/b]

Yet nevertheless unmarked in terms of authorship.

Not really. Even if the document itself does not explicitly state who the author is, the record of authorship is maintained in community records and memory.

Here's an analogy: Consider a family with five kids. One supper, Jill, the youngest, brings a picture of a horse she drew at school that day. The picture is stuck on the refrigerator. Even though the drawing was not signed by Jill, everyone in the family knows it's "The Horse that Jill Drew". A person visiting the house for the first time might wonder who drew the picture, but someone from the family can always clear things up for the visitor.


"...not eyewitness authorship" would imply the writer was not one of the 12 disciples would it not?

"if not eyewitness authorship" -- it implies the writer was, indeed, an eye-witness himself or herself to at least part of the events described. He or she needn't be one of the Apostles; Jesus did have other disciples too.


But does this in any way indicate that that was the original text which got modified?

What makes you assume something was modified?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's an analogy: Consider a family with five kids. One supper, Jill, the youngest, brings a picture of a horse she drew at school that day. The picture is stuck on the refrigerator. Even though the drawing was not signed by Jill, everyone in the family knows it's "The Horse that Jill Drew". A person visiting the house for the first time might wonder ...[text shortened]... ho drew the picture, but someone from the family can always clear things up for the visitor.

That's a suspect analogy. Jill's family members were around when she brought the drawing home, and they were still around when the visitor came to look at the picture. The same can't be said that for this gospel after the 1st century or so.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
That's a suspect analogy. Jill's family members were around when she brought the drawing home, and they were still around when the visitor came to look at the picture. The same can't be said that for this gospel after the 1st century or so.

But, as long as the family and its descendants sit together for supper and say "There's the horse that Jill [or Aunt Jill, or Great Aunt Jill, or Great Great Aunt Jill] drew" a visitor will always receive the information.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not really. Even if the document itself does not explicitly state who the author is, the record of authorship is maintained in community records and memory.

So why say things like:
"Doesn't mean they weren't the authors. Just because Romeo & Juliet does not have 'A Play by William Shakespeare' following it doesn't mean it wasn't written by Shakespeare."
instead of just coming up with "the record of authorship is maintained in community records and memory" from the beginning?


"if not eyewitness authorship" -- it implies the writer was, indeed, an eye-witness himself or herself to at least part of the events described.
Seems like I just don't understand English - or you don't?

What makes you assume something was modified?
I guess I was mind reading despite my efforts not to. I cant think of any other reason for you comments though.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's an analogy: Consider a family with five kids. One supper, Jill, the youngest, brings a picture of a horse she drew at school that day. The picture is stuck on the refrigerator. Even though the drawing was not signed by Jill, everyone in the family knows it's "The Horse that Jill Drew". A person visiting the house for the first time might wonder ...[text shortened]... ho drew the picture, but someone from the family can always clear things up for the visitor.

Family traditions are frequently wrong, especially over a generation. It is quite common to be told that some item came from this or that relative only to find out that that was not the case at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Family traditions are frequently wrong, especially over a generation. It is quite common to be told that some item came from this or that relative only to find out that that was not the case at all.

That depends on the family structure and cultural elements as well. With joint families and like structures as early Christian communities traditions can be remarkably well-preserved for generations.

Originally posted by whodey
But were not the writers of the gospels disciples of Christ? Granted, they may have taken several generations to write, but are they not contemporaries of Christ? Why then did they write the gospels down in Greek rather than Aramaic? Would this not then point to the fact that perhaps their Teacher, who was Christ, also spoke in Greek to them?

My point is that if Christ's disciples such as Matthew knew Greek, then surely Christ knew it as well. Also, if the play on words could ONLY be spun speaking in Greek, then this would give Christ a reason for speaking in Greek at this time despite the fact that he may have spoken Aramaic most of the time. In addition, this would give rise for the necessity to write the gospels in Greek. Such meanings would be lost if written in Aramaic. Perhaps this is yet another reason that all of the gospels were written in Greek as opposed to Aramaic. Who is to say?

Originally posted by whodey
My point is that if Christ's disciples such as Matthew knew Greek, then surely Christ knew it as well. Also, if the play on words could ONLY be spun speaking in Greek, then this would give Christ a reason for speaking in Greek at this time despite the fact that he may have spoken Aramaic most of the time. In addition, this would give rise for the necessity ...[text shortened]... her reason that all of the gospels were written in Greek as opposed to Aramaic. Who is to say?

My point is that if Christ's disciples such as Matthew knew Greek, then surely Christ knew it as well.

1. Why would you think his initial 12 disciples knew Greek? As we've outlined here, the contention that any of the gospels were written by the actual disciples is problematic.

2. I don't see how this follows, logically. Association later in life with someone who speaks a different language doesn't make it likely that you will learn that language.

EDITS: Frak. Can't get superscript tags to work!

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
[b]My point is that if Christ's disciples such as Matthew knew Greek, then surely Christ knew it as well.

1. Why would you think his initial 12 disciples knew Greek? As we've outlined here, the contention that any of the gospels were written by the actual disciples is problematic.

2. I don't see how this follows, logically. Association later in at you will learn that language.

EDITS: Frak. Can't get superscript tags to work![/b]

The dsiciples did not know Greek? That is insane. After all, I think you will have no problem conceeding that Paul knew Greek. Was not Paul a contemporary of the disciples?

The quesiton still remains, why was the ENTIRE New Testament written in Greek? If it is due to evangelical reaons, does this mean that those who spoke Greek were the only people that were targeted for conversion? I think this highly unlikely.