5
votes
What Maniac does (and doesn't) get right about the Bible and the Gnostics
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Here's what Maniac gets wrong (and right) about the origins of Christianity
- Published
- Oct 18 2018
- Word count
- 1063 words
This article complains that Maniac has a mix of truth and fiction, and misconstrues the Biblical canon, and how and why it was formed - and then goes on to do the same.
The gospel of Luke, and the other major work of Acts, according to the article, were not written by Luke, and most scholars agree with that.
That's not correct.
There are three main views of the authorship of those documents.
So the implication that Luke or Acts are any less authentic, is ridiculous. The idea that most scholars agree, is far from correct. They're divided.
You couldn't pick a more controversial authorship. The church has been divided on it since about 120AD. There's no way to say whether or not Peter is the true author, and it is far from a closed conversation. Declaring that so factually, isn't held up by the evidence.
The Gospel of Mark was anonymous - the title was attached later. The author is anonymous, but again, probably an eyewitness. The fact that a document was assigned a name referencing John Mark at a later date has no impact on the authenticity of the document.
Similarly, the Gospel of Matthew, was anonymous. The title was attached later. He was a well-trained Jew, and adapted and expanded upon the work we now find collected in the Gospel of Mark (amongst several other documents, especially one that scholars have nicknamed Q), focusing on Judaism, the Messianic message, and the implications for Law. The title came from the same guy who named Mark, about 50-100 years after the document was written.
Common misconceptions don't amount to these documents being less authentic, and thus on-par with the ridiculousness found in the Gnostics - which cannot even qualify as being in the same category when it comes to authenticity of the documents.
That is... Crap. Objective crap.
The documents that were rejected, were rejected on strong grounds:
The reasoning of the early church for accepting and rejecting documents is also widely available for examination:
In fact, documents the church wanted to accept, were rejected if authenticity could not be strongly supported.
The expert chosen for this article is... Eh... Fringe.
This is how he presents himself on his website:
Well this was just a little silly. This scene was not supposed to be religious in nature. It just used a little bit of pop history to explain a bit of psychology. At least we can credit Dr. Myles for realizing that.