RE: What would an error in the bible even show?
July 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: July 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm by Marnie.)
(July 21, 2012 at 1:09 am)Undeceived Wrote:(July 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Marnie Wrote: Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples."held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.
You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.
Timidly admits? There is signifigant doubt about the authors of all the gospels. Only the most fundementalist scholars hold to the traditional views of authorship. They keep the name of the gospels because it's far less confusing than renaming them or calling them canoncal gospels 1,2,3 and 4.
(July 21, 2012 at 1:09 am)Undeceived Wrote:(July 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Marnie Wrote: Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples."held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.
You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.
Timidly admits? There is signifigant doubt about the authors of all the gospels. Only the most fundementalist scholars hold to the traditional views of authorship. They keep the name of the gospels because it's far less confusing than renaming them or calling them canoncal gospels 1,2,3 and 4.
