Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[37818]

As I said before date and author are not meaningful nor necessary for Plato's Republic. The comparison is a ruse.




All this is too late to justify your claims.



Provide information for what? If you are talking about the cuneiform literature there are numerous internet and archealogical sources that describe these finds.

Everything you posted in this thread is a ruse. And the sad part is you do it unwittingly.

[shunyadragon]

Everything you posted in this thread is a ruse. And the sad part is you do it unwittingly.

I only refer to contemporary academic sources,

[Doug Shaver]

The ;evidence only supports the names associated with the four gospel accounts.

Then we must disagree about the meaning of evidence. Would you like to give me your definition of the word?

[Tassman]

The earliest evidence says otherwise.

Your bald assertion is insufficient. What "evidence" says otherwise?.

[Sparko]

"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.

You would think that if there were earlier copies of the gospels with no names on them, or the wrong names on them, that by 200 CE we would have many copies without names or with the wrong names on them. We don't. There is no reason to think that they were not always named as they are named today. Not one shred of evidence. Not ONE copy with the wrong name. Not ONE copy without a name.

An argument from silence is not an argument at all.

[Sparko]

Having read several books about how historians do their thing, I don't think so.

um, great refutation.

Not everybody who lived 2,000 years ago knew everything there was to know about their time and place. Few would have had that kind of knowledge, and we cannot assume that they were the only ones putting their thoughts in writing.

We are not talking about "everybody"

That argument begs the question of the church's own credibility. You're assuming that the church itself could not have made any mistakes about its own origins.

Do you have any evidence that the church was not credible? and that does not answer why we don't have any misattributions or copies without names attached. All the evidence we do have points to the gospels having been written by the claimed authors. No evidence to the contrary exists.

The reasons don't persuade you. That doesn't mean there aren't any.

again, no evidence to the contrary exists. Imagining some unknown evidence that proves the gospels were not written by the 4 authors is just that, imaginary and wishful thinking.

I don't claim to know who wrote it. Plato's authorship does seem to be the most parsimonious supposition, but there is another point more relevant to this discussion. Nobody is claiming that what we should learn from the Republic depends on who wrote it. It presents certain ideas about how a society should be governed, and we can argue the merits of those ideas quite independently of any questions we might have about who first wrote them down.

Authorship is the question at hand. You seem to be fine with historians attributing authorship to other historical documents without having the originals, and only have a problem with the gospels. That is just special pleading.

[Sparko]

None of the manuscript evidence nor historical records date to support your assertions.

actually it all does.

[shunyadragon]

actually it all does.

No it does not.

[Tassman]

You would think that if there were earlier copies of the gospels with no names on them, or the wrong names on them, that by 200 CE we would have many copies without names or with the wrong names on them. We don't. There is no reason to think that they were not always named as they are named today. Not one shred of evidence. Not ONE copy with the wrong name. Not ONE copy without a name.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...emergence.html

An argument from silence is not an argument at all.

This is the consensus opinion of biblical scholars, not an "argument from silence.".

[Doug Shaver]

um, great refutation.

It was not supposed to be a refutation. It was supposed to be a rebuttal. Do you know the difference?

We are not talking about "everybody"

OK, but if you were not talking about everybody, then your argument was invalid. The absence of contrary evidence tells us nothing.

Do you have any evidence that the church was not credible?

You seem to be fine with historians attributing authorship to other historical documents without having the originals

You have no idea what I am fine with. You have made up your mind that all unbelievers think a certain way, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

and only have a problem with the gospels. That is just special pleading.

Try me. Show me the evidence on which historians base their judgment that Plato wrote the Republic, and then show me how similar it is to the evidence that the third gospel was written by one of Paul's occasional travelling companions by the name of Luke.

[37818]

The NT manuscript evidence, our copies, with authorship attached. The fact that there are NT documents which in the body of the documents the author does not name himself as the author.

The [NT*] Christian perspective of said documents being Holy Scripture means that they were Holy Scripture when they were written, not when some so called, yes, so called churches canonized them.
[* 2 Peter 1:16-21; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.]

[Sparko]

No it does not.

Yes, it does.

[Sparko]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...emergence.html



This is the consensus opinion of biblical scholars, not an "argument from silence.".

I can find scholars who say that they were written by the claimed authors. So what? Battling scholars?

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that they were written by anyone other than the claimed authors. If there was any such evidence, these scholars would reference it and you would be presenting it instead of merely quoting them saying that we don't know who wrote them.

We do know who wrote them. Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. If you disagree show me some actual evidence of anyone else having written them. You can't.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it does.

No it does not. No references that justify this external to the scriptures.

[shunyadragon]

I can find scholars who say that they were written by the claimed authors. So what? Battling scholars?

Can find some?!?!? Not based on evidence external from the scriptures.

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that they were written by anyone other than the claimed authors. If there was any such evidence, these scholars would reference it and you would be presenting it instead of merely quoting them saying that we don't know who wrote them.

We do know who wrote them. Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. If you disagree show me some actual evidence of anyone else having written them. You can't.

There is ZERO evidence outside an internal argument in scriptures that any authors are known.