... on Identity of Hagiographers, Debate under my Answer

... on Identity of Authors of the Bible, the Hagiographers (quora, own answer to own q) · ... on Identity of Hagiographers, Debate under my Answer · ... on Identity of Hagiographers, Other answers and my replies to them (quora)

Q

Who are the authors of the Bible? / Own answer
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-authors-of-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Content

see previous

I

Jay Bazzinotti

5h ago · 1 upvote

there’s no evidence the new testament was written by matthew. mark or luke. I believe they are pseudoepigraphic. written by someone else in their name. and Jofhn would have been over 120 years old to write his gospel. But ok. yours is the triumph of faith over scholarship or evidence. you believe because you want to believe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago · 1 upvote from Jay Bazzinotti

You forget that there is a scholarship of tradition before there is a scholarship of reconstruction.

Before you can dismiss the Church’s author informations, you need a valid reason to do so - only then can you start reconstructing who they were or weren’t instead of what the Church says.

What is your next project? Proving Tolkien didn’t write Lord of the Rings? C. S. Lewis didn’t write Narnia? Rowling had nothing to do with Harry Potter?

I may inform you beforehand, I believe the traditional author assignments on these too.

I also believe the traditional genre assignments. Novels for the three fantasy authors, posthumous biography for the four Gospels.

Now, you can of course consider this as being “the triumph of faith over scholarship or evidence”.

But if so, what is the kind of evidence YOU accept for an author assignment?

Jay Bazzinotti

1h ago

I do t mean to be rude but tradition is another word for witchcraft. Real scholarship of belief or trust requires references and citations that scholars can test and refute or corroborate. Traditional beliefs may be true. Or they may not be. But the result is the same. You cannot assume they are unless you take them at face value the same way you would for any con man.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

"I do t mean to be rude but tradition is another word for witchcraft."

Er, no.

"Real scholarship of belief or trust requires references and citations that scholars can test and refute or corroborate."

I said scholarship of tradition.

The fact of a tradition being there is one reference and citation which scholars can test if it is there, and it can be refuted or corroborated in the face of other traditions, if any.

For instance, the tradition of "modern scholarship" to take "pseudepigrapha" is a reference leading back to Reimarus, 1600 years after the facts of the books. It can be refuted with a reference to the prior tradition, that of the Church, which can be documented as certainly there since Papias and probably there before.

On the other hand, the tradition given by St Papias is not refuted by any earlier tradition.

If you claim that the Gospel of St John could have been written in 125 AD and 25 years later have been taken for being written before 100 AD, in the lifetime of a man born 5 AD who had been a disciple, you are making a very bold statement as to how traditions could form.

It is more than 25 years ago Lord of the Rings is supposed to have been written by Tolkien, so how do you prove that LotR was not written only 25 years ago by someone else?

You end up comparing traditional beliefs to con men.

It is more correct, ethically, to compare them to normal men. They may sometimes be mistaken, but you don’t consider someone is mistaken because he opens his mouth, unless you have decided beforehand he is a conman or a sucker. So, if you decide some friend of yours is mistaken, you come up with some kind of explanation for how the mistake arose.

Same with traditions.

Jay Bazzinotti

14h ago

This is not true at all. We have all kinds of documetation about LOTR et al that we can concude with reasonable certainty who wrote the books and so on - granted it’s only been x number of years, not 1000s. But to attribute the Gospels to the people whose name adorns them is stretching scholarship mighty thin. You’re just saying the Bible is right because the Bible says so. It’s not even good history, much of the Gospels are filled with outright errors of history let alone being able to determine who wrote them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"We have all kinds of documetation about LOTR et al that we can concude with reasonable certainty who wrote the books and so on - granted it’s only been x number of years, not 1000s."

When Papias gave the four authors in 150 AD, he also had all kinds of documentation about them.

When LotR shall be two thousand years from now, shall we not be able to know any more it was Tolkien, just because the documentation has largely been lost?

"You’re just saying the Bible is right because the Bible says so."

No, first I am saying the Church is right, about this limited matter (I believe it right about other matters too, but that is another matter) second I am saying it is right because in a position to know - like English speakers of 21:st C are in a position to know Tolkien wrote LotR.

Whether content is correct is another kettle of fish. THIS question is about WHO wrote.

"It’s not even good history, much of the Gospels are filled with outright errors of history"

So you pretend, but that is another kettle of fish.

"let alone being able to determine who wrote them."

What exactly has the one to do with the other?

II

Continued from French, from here:

Quora : Qui sont les auteurs de la Bible ?
https://fr.quora.com/Qui-sont-les-auteurs-de-la-Bible/answer/Hassan-Sidi-Yahya-1

My blog : Réponse à un Musulman (un vrai cette fois, quora)
http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.fr/2017/11/reponse-un-musulman-un-vrai-cette-fois.html

Hassan Sidi Yahya

44m ago

As The reason requires,What has been corrupted by susceptibility can not be used as a reliable source in the investigation of the truth.

There are Bibles, certainly in contradiction because of the human nature that modified them, there is only one Quran in 604 pages, all conforming on both the orders and the human nature in its penalties to the offenses and to sins.

The church said, according to the Bible or not, that the earth is the center of the universe (galaxies), and Galileo Galilei was condemned for this discovery. The Christian opens an eye to science and sees the Glory of God, and closes it when he reads the Bible.

Nobody is a child of God, and the little time given on earth is to prepare us for eternal life, either in the chastening punishment, or in the enjoyment of paradise with his beautiful women and his alcohol.

Eternal life is not a billion years, it is the infinite and the food is the worst of the people of hell.

certainly the punishment is more powerful to the able to practice their conviction in Islam and do harm to themselves by not practicing or emigrating to practice, and the weak scared of harassment to practice Islam and unable to emigrate, Allah can to forgive the day of judgment. this was mentioned in chapter 4 verse 97 - 98 - 99 of the Noble Quran.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

32m ago

“What has been corrupted by susceptibility can not be used as a reliable source in the investigation of the truth.”

Where do you get it from anything in the Bible has been corrupted?

“There are Bibles, certainly in contradiction because of the human nature that modified them”

Non-LXX OT will include wrong time for Flood from Creation and for Abraham from Flood. That is the amount of minute detail which you can expect to be contradicting.

“there is only one Quran”

Meaning that the revelation to Mohammed could not be verified against other and earlier revelation, and against Church history.

“The church said, according to the Bible or not, that the earth is the center of the universe (galaxies), and Galileo Galilei was condemned for this discovery.”

I stand by the Church against Galileo. I also don’t see either the astronomic evidence or the sentence of the Church as saying there are several different galaxies.

That concept comes from an astronomic dispute in 1930 or so.

“The Christian opens an eye to science and sees the Glory of God, and closes it when he reads the Bible.”

I don’t consider the concepts of Heliocentrism and related glorify God.

The rest of your answer is simply preaching to save one’s soul, a good thing per se, but I don’t rely on the Qoran for it. Nor on the revelation given to Mohammed.

Oh, one more thing : Jesus certainly is a Child of the Father, from all eternity. Christians in the state of grace are children by adoption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

14m ago

Oh, one more thing:

“certainly the punishment is more powerful to the able to practice their conviction in Islam and do harm to themselves by not practicing or emigrating to practice, and the weak scared of harassment to practice Islam and unable to emigrate, Allah can to forgive the day of judgment.”

I am not a Muslim by conviction but weak.

I am a Catholic by conviction. Those who harass me are, if any, Muslims and medical personnel.

When I drink a beer, but not four beers, I follow my conviction.

When I accept (rarely) four beers by hospitality, I also follow my conviction. There are rules about accepting hospitality.

When I accept some sugary thing just after drinking a beer and from a Muslim who is aware sugar and alcohol don’t go well together, I am not sure I follow my conviction. If I knew he was trying to punish me for drinking a beer, I would need to say no, if it can be hospitality, at least theoretically I can say yes.

Hassan Sidi Yahya

14m ago

‘I am not a Muslim by conviction but weak.I am a Catholic by conviction. Those who harass me are, if any, Muslims and medical personnel.When I drink a beer, but not four beers, I follow my conviction.When I accept (rarely) four beers by hospitality, I also follow my conviction. There are rules about accepting hospitality.When I accept some sugary thing just after drinking a beer and from a Muslim who is aware sugar and alcohol don’t go well together, I am not sure I follow my conviction. If I knew he was trying to punish me for drinking a beer, I would need to say no, if it can be hospitality, at least theoretically I can say yes.’

In today's world, there is freedom of expression and religion and human rights in all countries across the world. which are not by the way in contradiction with Islam.

This kind of weakness of which the verse speaks about, was seen when the indelosie (current spain) was invaded by Christians who imposed Christianity on the population and there were atrocities and courts ransacking homes in search of Muslims.

So, for any Muslim asking this I said to him: Call the police. do not believe that you have an excuse before God on the day of judgment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You know, Andalusia had been oppressed by Muslims, and the Christians did allow Muslims to simply withdraw from Spain.

I am, once again*, not a Muslim.

Hassan Sidi Yahya

1m ago

I doubt that all this tolerance about which you speak can exist in the centuries of the time of which you call middle age.

I’am Allways a Muslim

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The rules were like this:

• if you were baptised, you had to stay Catholic
• if you were not baptised, but not agressing Catholics, you were left in peace, but could not molest missionaries if you thought they bothered you
• if you were not baptised, but agressing Catholics, including agressing missionaries or including by fighting for Califate, you could get killed unless you converted.

* Meaning : telling you once again. I have never been a Muslim.