Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2014, 12:57 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:51 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.

The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.

(07-06-2014 11:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.

I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?

At the risk of repeating myself I'm not sure what you are referring to when you write
"There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant." Josephus' "The Jewish War" and the Gospels were written contemporaneously, which is what Atwill says, and, by your own admission, most scholars agree with.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 01:00 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 12:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:51 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.


I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?

"I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?"

I think your question is

"Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written?"

That's what you're asking I assume. Well...Josephus wrote in the 70's, the first gospel was written in the 70's, so I'm not sure where you get "decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written" from. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 01:26 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 01:30 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:51 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please outline what you think the "previously commonly accepted theory" is. I'm not sure there is such a thing.

The generally accepted theory is that christianity evolved over period of about a hundred and fifty years, and was influenced by many writers and figures of the early church. What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist.

(07-06-2014 11:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "3) Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written? If Titus commissioned it before he died, wouldn't that mean that Josephus and others would have been working on it starting some time around 81AD? If you are generous, the first writings of the gospel of matthew where published in 100AD and perhaps as late as 140AD. Why the time gap?"

Joseph published the Jewish War in 78 CE.

Atwill places the Gospels having been created during the reign of Vespasian and Titus i.e. sometime between 70 and 81.

You are placing Matthew around 100 A.D. at the earliest. I must admit I tend to agree with you as I find little evidence of the Gospels in the first century too. However the vast majority of scholars claim the first gospel was written as early as about 70, after the first Jewish War.

So now the ball is back in your court. You are coming up with a theory that places the Gospels later then what most scholars say. Please provide your evidence.

I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?

"What is NOT generally accepted is that it was the brainchild of roman propagandist"

Totally agree with you there. Makes for an interesting discussion doesn't it! Let me share with you my story about this. I've spent many years of my spare time studying the origins of Christianity. I became good friends with a well respected author in Hobart named Douglas Lockhart. I read his books over and over, particularly "Jesus the heretic" he got me interested in the works of Hugh Schonfield, who's a bigger name. His " the Passover plot" sold about 6 million copies. He also wrote "those incredible Christians" which I think is actually better. I read scores of other books about Jesus. It slowly dawned on me how probable it was that the whole damn story was propaganda written to undermine the Jews. ( neither Lockhart or Schonfield think this.) I rang up Douglas and told him my idea, and he said he almost fell off his kitchen chair. LOL. It was only after a lot more reading that I found a few authors around the world who have the same idea… that Christianity was created to counter messianic Judaism. It's not a well accepted idea, and it's a bit out there, so it's easy to be cynical. Yet I think it should be taken seriously. I try not to be anal about it because there's a good chance I'm wrong. This is one of the reasons I'm here, so that smart people can look at it from another angle and tell me why I'm not right.

What struck me about the history of the times was that before and after the first Jewish War there was a sort of cold war going on between the monotheism, exclusivity and irrationality of Judaism with the polytheism, inclusivity and rationality of the Greek and Roman world. This fundamental clash of cultures created numerous large skirmishes and two major wars. It was a battle between the authority of the Jewish priests and the authority of Caesar. Caesar used military might on many occasions but just couldn't subdue these stubborn backward jews. Propaganda needed to be used, and despite what Carrier says, generally speaking, they were often bloody good at it.

The Romans usually absorbed the gods from conquered nations and built temples to them in Rome, so they became Roman gods too. But the damn Jews with their bloody Yahweh were different. They didn't integrate well generally speaking. Jews in the diaspora sent money back to the priests in Jerusalem every year. They often didn't eat or drink with or marry Gentiles. They had their own rather backward rules and laws, and sometimes therefore didn't obey Roman law. They couldn't get used to the idea that Israel, god's holy land, was ruled over by Gentiles.

So the government suppressed them using militarily might, economic suppression (taxes) and propaganda (Christianity).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 01:37 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 01:00 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 12:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?"

I think your question is

"Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written?"

That's what you're asking I assume. Well...Josephus wrote in the 70's, the first gospel was written in the 70's, so I'm not sure where you get "decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written" from. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew

Ok. Here is the odd thing though. None of the Church Fathers in the first century quoted from Matthew Mark Luke or John. In fact the gospels didn't have these names attached to them until the 180s! So I don't think anyone, including Atwill, knows for sure when the gospels were first written, although it was before 180 CE.

Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s in Rome, and has as a lot of surviving writings, never quotes diirectly from any of the four gospels. Interesting heh!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 10:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's a reasonable request and I will address it. However, for the next few days work demands take priority.

No worries. Thanks.

I do want to point out that my objections are not to the idea but primarily to the lack of corroborating evidence. My first post on the subject was that it would be great if it were true, but I awaited evidence. I still wait.

All throughout the discussions (now on at least two threads) my comments have been directed at the willingness of some to believe this by relying on both unreliable proponents and especially the reliance on 'facts' which are unprovable or provably wrong. Deltabravo's assertions have been the target of most of my criticisms of 'facts'.

The idea that Jews made up 10% or more of the Roman Empire is one such 'fact'. It doesn't seem likely to be true and has no good provenance. There are others, but Michael_Tadlock is largely making the points that I would make.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 01:00 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew

Ok. Here is the odd thing though. None of the Church Fathers in the first century quoted from Matthew Mark Luke or John. In fact the gospels didn't have these names attached to them until the 180s! So I don't think anyone, including Atwill, knows for sure when the gospels were first written, although it was before 180 CE.

Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s in Rome, and has as a lot of surviving writings, never quotes diirectly from any of the four gospels. Interesting heh!

Does that not conflict with the fact that the Flavian dynasty was from 69 - 96 CE?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 05:14 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 05:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 01:00 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 12:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I am not a biblical scholar, I can only quote the general opinion of other biblical scholars, and they put the writing of the first gospel in the first century AD. The gospel mentions the destruction of the temple which means it could not have been written before 73 CE. Regardless, if you agree with me then it sounds like I am arguing at a phantom opponent. There is a time gap between the two writings and it is very significant. Can you speak to this or not?"

I think your question is

"Why did it take decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written?"

That's what you're asking I assume. Well...Josephus wrote in the 70's, the first gospel was written in the 70's, so I'm not sure where you get "decades after Josephus writings for the first gospel to be written" from. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Theopedia'' and "church fathers" ? You can't possibly be serious. And not one mention of the Q source. Really ? The 4 (now canonical) gospels are vastly different literary works, with vastly different concepts and (pre) suppositions in each. They (as Carrier has demonstrated) exhibit a highly stylized mythological literary format. Each address to a very specific audience, each showing specific developments and understandings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0
Does Atwill address the question of who and why produced all the other (Gnostic) gospels ? I've never seen that anywhere. I don't see why Rome would have had to even think about doing this. If they did, it would have been in a pattern of other similar attempts, in other places. Are there other examples where Rome attempted this in other places ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 01:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 01:00 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew

Ok. Here is the odd thing though. None of the Church Fathers in the first century quoted from Matthew Mark Luke or John. In fact the gospels didn't have these names attached to them until the 180s! So I don't think anyone, including Atwill, knows for sure when the gospels were first written, although it was before 180 CE.

Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s in Rome, and has as a lot of surviving writings, never quotes diirectly from any of the four gospels. Interesting heh!

Yeah I have to admit, I don't really understand how the gospels are dated. Christian sources try and put Mathew at 50AD but that is impossible. I found an atheist source that claims Mark came about no earlier than 70CE, and according to wikipedia most scholars places mathew in 80-90CE. The names of the apostles were not attributed to them at the time and the content and gospels themselves to do give a name, that was added later. From what I understand, Mathew, at least, is in part dated by an early church leader from 100CE who was quoted by another chuch leader in 200CE as having quoted the gospels Undecided . So talk about second and third hand sources!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 04:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No worries. Thanks.

I do want to point out that my objections are not to the idea but primarily to the lack of corroborating evidence. My first post on the subject was that it would be great if it were true, but I awaited evidence. I still wait.

All throughout the discussions (now on at least two threads) my comments have been directed at the willingness of some to believe this by relying on both unreliable proponents and especially the reliance on 'facts' which are unprovable or provably wrong. Deltabravo's assertions have been the target of most of my criticisms of 'facts'.

The idea that Jews made up 10% or more of the Roman Empire is one such 'fact'. It doesn't seem likely to be true and has no good provenance. There are others, but Michael_Tadlock is largely making the points that I would make.

Here are some sources that mention 10%. How reliable they are...I'm not sure.

http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexa...-jews.html

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z4ea...3F&f=false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlj5-iwKueQ (this is from an Australian, with a phD, it only goes for 10 minutes, and he discusses Atwill)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(08-06-2014 05:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 01:00 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Ok, your right. According to this source, Mathew borrowed heavily from Mark which was believed to have been written in the 70s.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Theopedia'' and "church fathers" ? You can't possibly be serious. And not one mention of the Q source. Really ? The 4 (now canonical) gospels are vastly different literary works, with vastly different concepts and (pre) suppositions in each. They (as Carrier has demonstrated) exhibit a highly stylized mythological literary format. Each address to a very specific audience, each showing specific developments and understandings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0
Does Atwill address the question of who and why produced all the other (Gnostic) gospels ? I've never seen that anywhere. I don't see why Rome would have had to even think about doing this. If they did, it would have been in a pattern of other similar attempts, in other places. Are there other examples where Rome attempted this in other places ?

"The 4 (now canonical) gospels are vastly different literary works, with vastly different concepts and (pre) suppositions in each. They (as Carrier has demonstrated) exhibit a highly stylized mythological literary format."

Yes... This is another problem with Atwill's theory. It is particularly true of John's Gospel.

"Each address to a very specific audience, each showing specific developments and understandings."

Yes. But I don't think it's as quite clear cut as you say. For example Matthew has Jesus saying to his disciples to go out to the lost sheep of Israel, yet then has Jesus saying go out to all nations. Another example is that Mark makes out that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and therefore you would think it was written to appeal to Jews, but Mark makes many mistakes about Palestinian geography and Jewish customs, mistakes that Matthew tries to clear up. Your point is valid, and don't forget that multiple people interpolated and edited the Gospels after they were first written.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: