Comments on: Unravelled Threads http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:00:13 +0000 By: Strappado http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26947 Strappado Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:28:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26947 Incidentally, I had just given Matthew a little scrutiny myself in this blog post: http://strappado.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-guards-at-tomb-of-jesus.html In short, Matthew is based upon Mark but Matthew is the only gospel with a closed grave. And Matthew is the only one with guards mentioned. So in Mark, Lukas and John - anyone could have grabbed the stonecold body of Christ and left the door open. Matthew has simply tried to cover obvious holes in the story. Incidentally, I had just given Matthew a little scrutiny myself in this blog post: http://strappado.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-guards-at-tomb-of-jesus.html
In short, Matthew is based upon Mark but Matthew is the only gospel with a closed grave. And Matthew is the only one with guards mentioned. So in Mark, Lukas and John - anyone could have grabbed the stonecold body of Christ and left the door open. Matthew has simply tried to cover obvious holes in the story.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26921 Stephen Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:30:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26921 And having dug a little further myself, I see that Elisabeth, Anna, Joanna, Susanna and the widow of Sarepta are all characters mentioned only by Luke. And having dug a little further myself, I see that Elisabeth, Anna, Joanna, Susanna and the widow of Sarepta are all characters mentioned only by Luke.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26920 Stephen Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:36:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26920 Randel McCraw Helms covers it pretty well in his book "Who Wrote the Gospels". The main aspects are that the writer of Luke/Acts mentions women far more often than the other new testament writers and gives them a more prominent place. For example Matthew has the annunciation made to Joseph, Luke to Mary. Luke uniquely has Mary's Magnificat. Luke has women telling of the resurrection and men not believing them. Luke mentions the fetal quickening (1:41) which is the sort of subject more likely to be mentioned by a woman. According to Helms, Luke uses the word "woman" more than the other three gospel writers put together. Luke uses the word "womb" eight times, and the other three put together just twice. Helms gives numerous other examples as well. But to me the most striking example is Luke 8:2-3, which has the women keeping the men out of their own resources. It's fairly hard to imagine a man writing that down in the male-dominated middle eastern society of two millenia ago. Randel McCraw Helms covers it pretty well in his book "Who Wrote the Gospels". The main aspects are that the writer of Luke/Acts mentions women far more often than the other new testament writers and gives them a more prominent place. For example Matthew has the annunciation made to Joseph, Luke to Mary. Luke uniquely has Mary's Magnificat. Luke has women telling of the resurrection and men not believing them. Luke mentions the fetal quickening (1:41) which is the sort of subject more likely to be mentioned by a woman.

According to Helms, Luke uses the word "woman" more than the other three gospel writers put together. Luke uses the word "womb" eight times, and the other three put together just twice. Helms gives numerous other examples as well.

But to me the most striking example is Luke 8:2-3, which has the women keeping the men out of their own resources. It's fairly hard to imagine a man writing that down in the male-dominated middle eastern society of two millenia ago.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26919 Ebonmuse Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:00:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26919 That interests me - I haven't heard the argument that Luke was written by a woman. What evidence is there for this? That interests me - I haven't heard the argument that Luke was written by a woman. What evidence is there for this?

]]> By: Stephen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26913 Stephen Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:28:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26913 <blockquote> Supposedly the gospel writers ... all kept tabs on each other's stuff so they wouldn't have to repeat themselves.</blockquote> Stacey, this is indeed a very common excuse among Christians, but it doesn't stand up to examination, precisely because the gospel writers <b>did </b> repeat themselves on a large scale. Something like 90% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew with minor changes, and 70% in Luke. We aren't talking about the same stories being told in each author's own words, but in many cases near word-for-word copying. On the other hand, where there are differences, they are often changes to the actual events, not just to the way they are described. None of the gospels refers to any other (although they refer to the old testament a great deal). It is almost certain that each of the writers intended his/her gospel to be the one and only gospel. (Yes, "his/her" - there is some textual evidence that the writer of Luke was a woman.) And in any case the argument fails to explain the absence of the nativity from Mark, since the gospels of Matthew and Luke hadn't been written yet. I presume your suggestion that the four writers all got together to discuss their gospels is just for humorous effect? Or are there Christians who know so little of the bible that they actually believe that?

Supposedly the gospel writers ... all kept tabs on each other's stuff so they wouldn't have to repeat themselves.

Stacey, this is indeed a very common excuse among Christians, but it doesn't stand up to examination, precisely because the gospel writers did repeat themselves on a large scale. Something like 90% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew with minor changes, and 70% in Luke. We aren't talking about the same stories being told in each author's own words, but in many cases near word-for-word copying. On the other hand, where there are differences, they are often changes to the actual events, not just to the way they are described.

None of the gospels refers to any other (although they refer to the old testament a great deal). It is almost certain that each of the writers intended his/her gospel to be the one and only gospel. (Yes, "his/her" - there is some textual evidence that the writer of Luke was a woman.) And in any case the argument fails to explain the absence of the nativity from Mark, since the gospels of Matthew and Luke hadn't been written yet.

I presume your suggestion that the four writers all got together to discuss their gospels is just for humorous effect? Or are there Christians who know so little of the bible that they actually believe that?

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26900 OMGF Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:28:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26900 Stacey, I suggest you get your dad to read some stuff by Ehrman. "Misquoting Jesus" has a part about how trying to harmonize the gospels is completely wrongheaded. It's very well written and very accessible to those who aren't Biblical scholars. (Although it's possible that your dad is a Biblical scholar, but I think you know what I mean.) Stacey,
I suggest you get your dad to read some stuff by Ehrman. "Misquoting Jesus" has a part about how trying to harmonize the gospels is completely wrongheaded. It's very well written and very accessible to those who aren't Biblical scholars. (Although it's possible that your dad is a Biblical scholar, but I think you know what I mean.)

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26889 Thumpalumpacus Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:23:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26889 Bingo, Paul. Bingo, Paul.

]]> By: Paul Sunstone http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26883 Paul Sunstone Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:22:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26883 I think there might have been an historical Jesus, just like there was an historical Elvis. Then, after his death, "urban legends" grew up around Jesus, just as they have around Elvis. I think there might have been an historical Jesus, just like there was an historical Elvis. Then, after his death, "urban legends" grew up around Jesus, just as they have around Elvis.

]]> By: Stacey http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26879 Stacey Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:28:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26879 According to my dad (and I'm certain a great many other Christians), the gospels are written as "broken puzzle pieces"; a seeming discrepancy means that you have to put the two accounts together and they somehow fit without completely contradicting each other. Supposedly the gospel writers (not counting, of course, however many other gospels there were that were tossed out the window) all kept tabs on each other's stuff so they wouldn't have to repeat themselves. For example, concerning the nativity story and the massacre of the innocents: Mark and John didn't need to have a nativity story because it was already covered by Matthew and Luke, and Luke didn't need to cover Herod because Matthew already did. Because despite traveling around with a different set of people in Acts, Luke talked to the other three writers to hammer out these issues so as not to confuse later generations. :/ According to my dad (and I'm certain a great many other Christians), the gospels are written as "broken puzzle pieces"; a seeming discrepancy means that you have to put the two accounts together and they somehow fit without completely contradicting each other. Supposedly the gospel writers (not counting, of course, however many other gospels there were that were tossed out the window) all kept tabs on each other's stuff so they wouldn't have to repeat themselves.

For example, concerning the nativity story and the massacre of the innocents: Mark and John didn't need to have a nativity story because it was already covered by Matthew and Luke, and Luke didn't need to cover Herod because Matthew already did.

Because despite traveling around with a different set of people in Acts, Luke talked to the other three writers to hammer out these issues so as not to confuse later generations. :/

]]> By: Yoyo http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26867 Yoyo Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:39:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/09/unravelled-threads.html#comment-26867 I agree with you Jerry D, but I dont know how to make xian people read it as the ramblings of uneducated clans even tho they will be quite happy viewing the "words" of Mahommed in that way. It's the same theme Sam Harris refers to in his arguments against a belief in Zues. My children are appalled by bible stories because they do not read them through the "god filter". Unfortunately theist parents are appalled by the way I raise my kids. I agree with you Jerry D,

but I dont know how to make xian people read it as the ramblings of uneducated clans even tho they will be quite happy viewing the "words" of Mahommed in that way. It's the same theme Sam Harris refers to in his arguments against a belief in Zues.

My children are appalled by bible stories because they do not read them through the "god filter". Unfortunately theist parents are appalled by the way I raise my kids.

]]>