New pfp uggghh..... Presave I'm too excited idk what to do fuck..... I'm screaming crying but I also have school soon tragic... 1 more year just gotta power through.
I would like to talk about gospel authorship for a second. People assume we have loads of evidence or enough for gospel authorship but we don't. Never mind the fact that the Gospels don't name their authors and are written from a third person-omniscient point of view. The closest we get to maybe an instance of an author claiming that an eye witness wrote a gospel is the gospel of John which says the beloved deciple gave his testimony, but it's followed up by "we know his testimony is true"(using the royal we to refer to a singular author sperate from John) , so safe to say John didn't write that and there is no way to know if this is his actual testimony. The tradition of gospel authorship based on the textual evidence starts at AD 180 when Irenaeus of Lyons is actually the first to attribute the Gospels to Mathew Mark Luke and John.
Debunked defenses: People generally first point to Papias because he identifies Mathew and Mark as authors of Gospels or oracle's as they were called. The only problem is that Papias says Mathew's gospel was written in Hebrew which couldn't be the gospel of Mathew we are talking about today and not just because the only manuscripts are in Greek but because Mathew is dependent on Mark. We know that Mathew is dependent on Mark because it utilizes 90% of Mark and a good portion of that is quite literally word for word. Papias says that the gospel that Mark wrote is a sayings gospel (think gospel of thomas) which is not the gospel we have today which is written as an attempt at a pseudo-biographical narrative. Papias also says Mark was an interpreter of Peter who put together the sayings in no particular order nothing like the gospel of Mark which we have today. Papias also never quotes from the Gospels and has a contradictory narrative on the account of Judas' death which we find in the Mathew of today. Should also mention acts contradicts Mathew and Papias. Furthermore, the Gospels which we do have today were quoted heavily before AD 180 but they were always cited as "the memories of the apostles" meaning there was no indication of a tradition regarding authorship.
Some people raise the argument of why there is no competing claims to authorship. And to that I would say if everyone was quoting the gospels anonymously no one seemed to actually care about who authored them exactly so it wouldn't take much to just slap a name on them. Also if anyone could come up with some great logic based on no evidence for who could've authored them then it would probably stamp out any attempt to compete with the claims to authorship. But the thing is the defense is just built on nothing and it's pretty much the way early church fathers actually did explain this radically new claim to authorship later on.
We just need to narrow down the big 4 Peter James John and Paul. Why the big 4 well because they were the most highly respected among the deciples or at least popular. James and John are the only two deciples who we know were out preaching but James was dead at the point of supposed authorship. You can easily just replace James with Mathew because the Mathew we have today is the most Jewish of the Gospels and there is a tradition that he wrote something in hebrew so that takes care of that. The gospel of Mathew is also the only one which names Matthew's calling by name as the tax collecter even tho that is contradicted in the other Gospels by saying the tax collecter was Levi but no one is too concerned about the asymmetry here. Peter already had a gospel attributed to him and since no one wanted to compete with that or raise any eyebrows use Mark. Why Mark? Well there is already a tradition of Mark writing a sayings gospel using Peter as a source so that makes his name authoritative enough and also deals with the Peter conjecture. But what about Luke??? Well Paul, besides the fact that he was dead couldn't have authored Luke because the author for Luke also wrote acts and in acts the author identifies themselves as a traveling companion of Paul so just use Luke. John is the lucky left over he's alone on this so just give him the last one. There, you tackle the big four Peter, Paul, James, and John without needing to actually use three of them.
Since Ireneaus of Lyons was operating in Rome the most likely explanation based on the limited data is that someone in Rome compiled all the gospel accounts and placed names on them and how that person even came to the conclusion of authorship was not based on anything concrete.
Papias' words three seperate translations. καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὐπὸ τοῦ κυρίου η λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἐνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. “And the Elder said this also: ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.’ Such then is the account given by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made (by him): ‘So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.’” (JB Lightfoot and JR Harmer, Fragment II) “And the elder was saying this: ‘On the one hand, Mark, becoming Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately as many things as he remembered. On the other hand, [he did] not [write] in order the things either said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him. But later, as I said, [he had followed] Peter, who was teaching in accord with the anecdotes yet not as it were arranging the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong by writing some things as he related [them] from memory. For he was thinking one thing beforehand of one thing, [i.e.] to omit not a single one of the things that he had heard or to falsify anything in them.’ Therefore, on the one hand, these things are related by Papias [or ‘to Papias’ as the one who heard the tradition] concerning Mark. Concerning Matthew, on the other hand, these things were said: ‘On the one hand, therefore, Matthew did arrange the oracles in Hebrew ‘dialect.’ On the other hand, each one interpreted them as he was able.’” (Robert Gundry, “The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,” 49-50) “And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them… And this is what he says about Matthew: And Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.’” (Bart Ehrman, Loeb, 103) “The Elder used to say: ‘Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he [Peter?] recalled from memory – though not in an ordered form – of the things said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, [he heard and accompanied] Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement [suntaxin] of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some things just as he [Peter?] related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything. This, then, is the account given by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew the following was said: ‘Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement [sunetaxato] in the Hebrew language [hebraidi dialectō], but each person interpreted them as best he could’” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 203)
So atp YouTube is letting jubilie bring on fascist white supremacist nazis and then using the Joe Rogan excuse of "we just want to hear everyone's thoughts" bull shit. So sign the petition to try and get them demonotized altho I know it's a futile effort. (Also YouTube is kind of done with posting links now so idrk)
TNC
TNC
New pfp uggghh..... Presave I'm too excited idk what to do fuck..... I'm screaming crying but I also have school soon tragic... 1 more year just gotta power through.
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
TNC
New bisexual flax Taylor pfp
1 month ago | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
TNC
I couldn't get an orange era build exactly but then I thought screw it I'm doing a willow theme now
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 0
View 0 replies
TNC
@OneSwiftieClowning omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 1 reply
TNC
I would like to talk about gospel authorship for a second.
People assume we have loads of evidence or enough for gospel authorship but we don't. Never mind the fact that the Gospels don't name their authors and are written from a third person-omniscient point of view. The closest we get to maybe an instance of an author claiming that an eye witness wrote a gospel is the gospel of John which says the beloved deciple gave his testimony, but it's followed up by "we know his testimony is true"(using the royal we to refer to a singular author sperate from John) , so safe to say John didn't write that and there is no way to know if this is his actual testimony. The tradition of gospel authorship based on the textual evidence starts at AD 180 when Irenaeus of Lyons is actually the first to attribute the Gospels to Mathew Mark Luke and John.
Debunked defenses:
People generally first point to Papias because he identifies Mathew and Mark as authors of Gospels or oracle's as they were called. The only problem is that Papias says Mathew's gospel was written in Hebrew which couldn't be the gospel of Mathew we are talking about today and not just because the only manuscripts are in Greek but because Mathew is dependent on Mark. We know that Mathew is dependent on Mark because it utilizes 90% of Mark and a good portion of that is quite literally word for word. Papias says that the gospel that Mark wrote is a sayings gospel (think gospel of thomas) which is not the gospel we have today which is written as an attempt at a pseudo-biographical narrative. Papias also says Mark was an interpreter of Peter who put together the sayings in no particular order nothing like the gospel of Mark which we have today. Papias also never quotes from the Gospels and has a contradictory narrative on the account of Judas' death which we find in the Mathew of today. Should also mention acts contradicts Mathew and Papias. Furthermore, the Gospels which we do have today were quoted heavily before AD 180 but they were always cited as "the memories of the apostles" meaning there was no indication of a tradition regarding authorship.
Some people raise the argument of why there is no competing claims to authorship. And to that I would say if everyone was quoting the gospels anonymously no one seemed to actually care about who authored them exactly so it wouldn't take much to just slap a name on them. Also if anyone could come up with some great logic based on no evidence for who could've authored them then it would probably stamp out any attempt to compete with the claims to authorship. But the thing is the defense is just built on nothing and it's pretty much the way early church fathers actually did explain this radically new claim to authorship later on.
We just need to narrow down the big 4 Peter James John and Paul. Why the big 4 well because they were the most highly respected among the deciples or at least popular. James and John are the only two deciples who we know were out preaching but James was dead at the point of supposed authorship. You can easily just replace James with Mathew because the Mathew we have today is the most Jewish of the Gospels and there is a tradition that he wrote something in hebrew so that takes care of that. The gospel of Mathew is also the only one which names Matthew's calling by name as the tax collecter even tho that is contradicted in the other Gospels by saying the tax collecter was Levi but no one is too concerned about the asymmetry here. Peter already had a gospel attributed to him and since no one wanted to compete with that or raise any eyebrows use Mark. Why Mark? Well there is already a tradition of Mark writing a sayings gospel using Peter as a source so that makes his name authoritative enough and also deals with the Peter conjecture. But what about Luke??? Well Paul, besides the fact that he was dead couldn't have authored Luke because the author for Luke also wrote acts and in acts the author identifies themselves as a traveling companion of Paul so just use Luke. John is the lucky left over he's alone on this so just give him the last one. There, you tackle the big four Peter, Paul, James, and John without needing to actually use three of them.
Since Ireneaus of Lyons was operating in Rome the most likely explanation based on the limited data is that someone in Rome compiled all the gospel accounts and placed names on them and how that person even came to the conclusion of authorship was not based on anything concrete.
Papias' words three seperate translations.
καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὐπὸ τοῦ κυρίου η λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἐνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
“And the Elder said this also: ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.’ Such then is the account given by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made (by him): ‘So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.’” (JB Lightfoot and JR Harmer, Fragment II)
“And the elder was saying this: ‘On the one hand, Mark, becoming Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately as many things as he remembered. On the other hand, [he did] not [write] in order the things either said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him. But later, as I said, [he had followed] Peter, who was teaching in accord with the anecdotes yet not as it were arranging the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong by writing some things as he related [them] from memory. For he was thinking one thing beforehand of one thing, [i.e.] to omit not a single one of the things that he had heard or to falsify anything in them.’ Therefore, on the one hand, these things are related by Papias [or ‘to Papias’ as the one who heard the tradition] concerning Mark. Concerning Matthew, on the other hand, these things were said: ‘On the one hand, therefore, Matthew did arrange the oracles in Hebrew ‘dialect.’ On the other hand, each one interpreted them as he was able.’” (Robert Gundry, “The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,” 49-50)
“And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them… And this is what he says about Matthew: And Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.’” (Bart Ehrman, Loeb, 103)
“The Elder used to say: ‘Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he [Peter?] recalled from memory – though not in an ordered form – of the things said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, [he heard and accompanied] Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement [suntaxin] of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some things just as he [Peter?] related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything. This, then, is the account given by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew the following was said: ‘Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement [sunetaxato] in the Hebrew language [hebraidi dialectō], but each person interpreted them as best he could’” (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 203)
Should I start doing more of these?
@OneSwiftieClowning
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 2
View 2 replies
TNC
I'm going to start randomly posting my thoughts on philosophy even if theyre dumb completely incoherent or misenterperted because I'm that bored.
1 month ago | [YT] | 2
View 0 replies
TNC
So atp YouTube is letting jubilie bring on fascist white supremacist nazis and then using the Joe Rogan excuse of "we just want to hear everyone's thoughts" bull shit. So sign the petition to try and get them demonotized altho I know it's a futile effort. (Also YouTube is kind of done with posting links now so idrk)
https://chng.it/VDvnLVKZry
@OneSwiftieClowning
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
TNC
Nominated by: @OneSwiftieClowning
Tay song with the same number of letters as your name:
Cardigan
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
TNC
Finally done and I threw Taylor on the lcd screen too
@OneSwiftieClowning
1 month ago | [YT] | 1
View 4 replies
Load more