The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences
Quote:
You were also including other claims which needed unpacking, hence my counter. It shows the development of the gospels. The other synoptics are not unique or corroborating works. They are corrections-improvements, direct plagiarisms of the original with new more fantastic tales added. With these other improvements in hand marks gospel appears deficient.
That's because the entire gospel of mark is repeated nearly word for word in matthew and luke. It's the true source document. Removing the source is something you can only do because it was copied.
When is the last time you read all four gospels for yourself?
Quote:
Timothy wasn't written by paul:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy][/url]
According to...
The author of
First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the
Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (
1:1). Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that
First Timothy, along with
Second Timothy and
Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather to an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#cite_note-1][1][/url] Most scholars now affirm this view.
Guess who's name shows up when clicking on the 1 by "most scholars"? It's Bart Ehrman, the most liberal scholar to date.
Again, what are the reasons for the case that it was written by Paul vs the evidence against?
1,800 years after the fact "modern liberal scholars" make weird claims because of a small observation while dismissing all of the evidence against.
Evidence for:
Paul's name is on the book.
The historical use of The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences
The early church unanimously accepted all thirteen letters as authentic.
Evidence for Deacons and Elders in Undisputed Letters - The content of 1st Tim is in practice to this day.
The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters.
Simply put, individuals closest in proximity to the writing of a document can know with more certainty who actually authored the document than those two-thousand years removed.
Quote:
In fact it would be utterly bizarre for paul who loved to quote scripture, to have been familiar with the synoptic and never mention their existence or quote from them outside of this supposed passing quote.
Would an email to your spouse look different than an email to your kids, coworkers, group of friends?
Given the audience, letter to Tim vs an entire church, given the content of the message, was there a need to quote scripture?
Quote:
They you'd be throwing out most scholars.
If the best evidence indicates that we should, why not? When Wikipedia claims, "most scholars 'and quotes Bart, red flags should go up.