Comments on: A Good Debate http://tete-tete-tete.com/2010/06/good-debate/ Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:49:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: smijer http://tete-tete-tete.com/2010/06/good-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5940 smijer Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:35:42 +0000 http://tete-tete-tete.com/?p=3032#comment-5940 I would disagree with you about John having the most accurate answers about who Jesus was. John was writing 50 years after Jesus, and is, of all the gospels, the most theological and least biographical. It is likely that the author belonged to a community that remembered the teachings of one of the original apostles, but it is unlikely that this apostle was still living at the time that John wrote. John uses a unique set of sources - which may have rivaled the sources of the synoptic gospels in terms of age and accuracy, but which largely lack attestation outside the gospel. Mark, on the other hand, was likely written during the lifetime of one or more of the apostles, and may have had the benefit of sources much closer to Jesus. The fact that Luke and Matthew relied heavily on Mark as a source speaks to the good reputation it enjoyed as a biography. It is unlikely that any of the evangelists knew Jesus during his life, but a case could be made that Mark had the best access to traditions reflective of the apostles of Jesus. I would disagree with you about John having the most accurate answers about who Jesus was. John was writing 50 years after Jesus, and is, of all the gospels, the most theological and least biographical. It is likely that the author belonged to a community that remembered the teachings of one of the original apostles, but it is unlikely that this apostle was still living at the time that John wrote. John uses a unique set of sources – which may have rivaled the sources of the synoptic gospels in terms of age and accuracy, but which largely lack attestation outside the gospel. Mark, on the other hand, was likely written during the lifetime of one or more of the apostles, and may have had the benefit of sources much closer to Jesus. The fact that Luke and Matthew relied heavily on Mark as a source speaks to the good reputation it enjoyed as a biography. It is unlikely that any of the evangelists knew Jesus during his life, but a case could be made that Mark had the best access to traditions reflective of the apostles of Jesus.

]]> By: jlue http://tete-tete-tete.com/2010/06/good-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5939 jlue Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:19:44 +0000 http://tete-tete-tete.com/?p=3032#comment-5939 I will try to be brief...:) You went to the heart of the issue when you said: <blockquote>His strongest point – and one which did go unanswered – concerned the question of who Jesus said that he was.</blockquote> Herein lies the difference in Evangelicals and non-evangelicals, knowing who Jesus is. I know very little about either of these two men other than what you or they tell us here and that Ehrman seemed much more emotionally involved than Evans. What they have to say is interesting, but Evans did not attempt to answer each charge leveled. There are many volumes written on these questions and they really couldn't be covered in 1 1/2 hours. What I do know is that each of the gospels were recorded and preserved through the ages for different purposes. Much of what Ehrman mentioned here was the fact that there is a difference in what different men recorded. Each record is for a different purpose. Just because something is left out by one author and not by another doesn't <i>necessarily</i> mean that it didn't occur. Luke is the only person who gives some insight into the type of record he made. John had a more intimate relationship with Christ. John is the author who best answers the question, "Who is Jesus?" I will try to be brief…:)
You went to the heart of the issue when you said:

His strongest point – and one which did go unanswered – concerned the question of who Jesus said that he was.

Herein lies the difference in Evangelicals and non-evangelicals, knowing who Jesus is.

I know very little about either of these two men other than what you or they tell us here and that Ehrman seemed much more emotionally involved than Evans. What they have to say is interesting, but Evans did not attempt to answer each charge leveled. There are many volumes written on these questions and they really couldn’t be covered in 1 1/2 hours.

What I do know is that each of the gospels were recorded and preserved through the ages for different purposes. Much of what Ehrman mentioned here was the fact that there is a difference in what different men recorded. Each record is for a different purpose. Just because something is left out by one author and not by another doesn’t necessarily mean that it didn’t occur.

Luke is the only person who gives some insight into the type of record he made.

John had a more intimate relationship with Christ. John is the author who best answers the question, “Who is Jesus?”

]]>