Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Blackleaf]

I must confess, guys. I actually fully agreed with everything Nipper said. I was just too fond of my sinful lifestyle to admit it. How could I continue to drown small puppies and kittens in the blood of innocent children if I became a Christian? It's just not possible. If I became a Christian, I'd have to stop sinning and be perfect like all the other Christians out there.

[AllRight]

I must confess, guys. I actually fully agreed with everything Nipper said. I was just too fond of my sinful lifestyle to admit it. How could I continue to drown small puppies and kittens in the blood of innocent children if I became a Christian? It's just not possible. If I became a Christian, I'd have to stop sinning and be perfect like all the other Christians out there.

Sounds like you miss Nipper :-(

[Mike Cl]

Sounds like you miss Nipper :-(

Good chew toys are hard to find. 

[Randy Carson]

So, am I to take it we've given up on trying to rewrite the history of the gospels so that the OP is in a much better position for whatever secret argument he could not make until we all agreed that Jesus had a personal hand in writing them and have moved on to arguments unrelated to the original post?  Because I have yet to see Randy finally either accept that "scientific consensus" trumps "this one guy I like who wrote some books" or give a reason that is not the case, but the argument does seem to have been abandoned.

My apologies. I was engaged elsewhere.

No, I am not abandoning the OP, but I'm not sure I understand what you have written. What "scientific consensus" and what "one guy" are you referring to here?

I'll check back often in order to respond to your post.

[Randy Carson]

So, what?  This makes them true?  I do love the old "what is not proves what is" argument.  Please, do go on.

Thanks. I will.

It goes to the question of whether the authors can be trusted.

Any good police detective will tell you that there are only three motives for committing a crime: money, sex, power.

Which of these would have been the motive for the apostles to have simply made up the accounts contained in the gospels?

The honest answer is: None of them.

Consequently, while you may not believe what the gospel writers say, it is reasonable for you to acknowledge that they did.

[Randy Carson]

The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point.  These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described.  The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one.  Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.

This is incorrect. In fact, it's simply bass-ackward.

The Criterion of Embarrassment is one of the strong suites of the New Testament. The gospel writers did not avoid including things that actually made themselves, Jesus or the Early Church look bad, and why? Because they were true.

One other point: If the gospels were written much later as you mistakenly believe, then why were they not named after major figures of the faith such as Peter, James or Mary? Oh, sure...those false gospels were eventually written and rejected...but the earliest gospels were named after folks who were not the superstars of the Early Church. Matthew was a tax collector working for the Romans and hated by the Jews. Mark and Luke were Gentiles and relative nobodies. So, why were these books attributed to these authors? Because that's who actually wrote them. Duh.

Finally, to your point about Paul: Wow. Total fail. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 15
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul is reminding them in writing of what he had previously told them in person. And he is passing on to them what he himself had learned from the apostles during one of his visits with them in Jerusalem: Jesus was raised on the third day.

There was no concept of a "metaphysical" resurrection in Jewish thought; Paul is speaking of a physical resurrection of Jesus.

[Randy Carson]

That is an interesting take.  We do not know who wrote any of the gospels.  So, how do we know how they profited or not?  Nor do we know when they were written.  Who is to say that the original writers had one thing in mind, but the later users and compilers of the NT had another thing in mind.  We don't know.  But we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible,  was compiled from a much larger body of works.  Why did they keep some of it and discard others?  And there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many.  And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other.  I find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'.

Regarding when they were written, see my OP.

As for who wrote the gospels, we ABSOLUTELY know who wrote them: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We have this from Papias and others. But you disagree, so I must ask:

What other candidates have been considered as genuine authors of the synoptics? Can you name anyone who has been viewed as a possible author since the Apostolic era?

[Randy Carson]

But we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible,  was compiled from a much larger body of works.  Why did they keep some of it and discard others? 

Agreed.

And the 27 books that we do recognize as canonical were recognized as genuine because they met three criteria:

1. Apostolic Authority. The accepted books were written by an apostle or by someone in close association with them.
2. Doctrinal Conformity. The accepted books taught doctrines that were in line with what the living Church held as true. IOW, no heretical novelties were allowed.
3. Continuous Acceptance. The accepted books were held as genuine by the churches which had received them from the beginning.

For these reasons, books such as the Gospel of Thomas or Clement's Letter to the Corinthians did not make the canon.

And there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many.  And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other. 

Many Bibles?

There are different translations and slightly different Old Testaments perhaps, but you can find the same 27 books in any New Testament around the world.

I find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'.

Ironically, here the NT simply outshines any other work of ancient history. We have over 10,000 ancient manuscripts with the oldest dating to the middle of the second century. No other work of antiquity even comes close.

[Randy Carson]

Theological scholars have made those estimated dates.  Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE.  Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.

And atheists have a vested interest in using the latest estimated dates possible.

MY argument hinges on the FACTS presented in the OP, and I think it is compelling rationale for an earlier dating.

[Randy Carson]

You are bordering on a lie right there with the deception you're throwing.  Yes, much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts which were written hundreds of years after the fact, but those manuscripts, alone, are not the totality of the evidence to support the historical account, as you are slyly trying to suggest.  We do not simply find a manuscript where some guy claims something happened 200 years before and say, "Wow.  So, THAT happened.  Let's put it into the history books."  I know it would be very convenient for you if we did, but that is not how it works, because SCIENCE!

In fact, taking your own example, much of what YOU know about the Trojan War is undoubtedly made up and very much NOT taken as historical fact.  Homer's Iliad is not considered a "historical document".  It's a poem.  The characters in it, though depicted in movies as historical fact, are, by historians, considered likely fictional characters.  We don't know that Helen of Troy was a real person.  But we do know there was a Trojan War, not because Homer spoke of it in a poem, but because the site has been excavated.  It's one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world.  Historians look at all these old documents, but take nothing from them as "fact" until they can match up sites and artifacts with depictions in the manuscripts, or at least with multiple other corroborating accounts.  In this case all the Iliad tells us is that people at the time "knew" of a great war which had taken place at a place called both Troy and Ilium.  The writing style suggests the writer expected his audience to have some knowledge of the war he was writing about beforehand.  This tells historians, not that the war happened, but that it was a common belief at the time.

So, what we have is a "claim".  Historians then go out to gather the "facts", the part you don't want to do because they might not (or outright don't) support your beliefs.  The reason we know the Trojan War happened is because there is evidence to back it up, not simply because some guy claimed it hundreds of years after the fact.  Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse, those are not historical facts because there is no evidence for them.  Yes, the Trojan War is "found" in a manuscript hundreds of years after the fact, but that manuscript is not considered even close to a historical account of the war.  All it tells historians about the war is how people at the time viewed it all that time later.  Nothing more.

And the reasons we know that Christianity is true is that the living memory of the Church has preserved the details, the New Testament is historically reliable, and non-Christian accounts by Jewish and Roman historians corroborate key aspects of the life and death of Jesus and the Church He founded.

[Randy Carson]

You cannot infer, from one little fragment, the entire NT as available in 125 CE.  That date is a "range" it is more like 125 - 175 CE ... with the theologians naturally taking the bottom number.  You cannot even infer a whole book of the NT from one little fragment.  You have to have substantial copies to date the work, not a fragment that might have been part of a pre-NT work, that was subsequently copied into a NT work.  The substantial copies date from 175 - 225 CE.  The earliest surviving whole Christian bible dates from around 400 CE (OT + NT) and there are revisions directly in the body of that work ... and there is a fair amount of that one missing too.

The existence of a fragment dated from the middle of the second century is not insignificant.

There is nothing comparable to this in all of ancient history. The New Testament is without peer in this respect.

[Randy Carson]

I agree that the NT is a collection of copies from earlier mythologies, especially the Jewish 'Old Testament'. But many more parallels can be found in Egyptian and Sumerian mythologies dating as far back as 3,000 BC. From virgin births, crucifixion and resurrection to walking on water, the flood and ark and many more, the NT is basically a rehashing of primitive myths. Today it would be called a blatant copyright infringement.

A careful study of these "primitive myths" would reveal to you that there is no real parallel between them and the life of Jesus. The heavy lifting has been done by professional scholars who have the credentials to do the research. You may read their books at your leisure.

What about the Apocryphic gospels? Why were they excluded from the NT? The secret book of Mary Magdalen, the gospel of truth, acts of Thomas, all omitted from the good book, lingering in the secret Vatican library. Humans like you and I decided what is the word of God and what isn't.

No one "decided" what is the Word of God. Humans RECOGNIZED the character of the divinely inspired books as they themselves were led by the Spirit of God.

[Baruch]

While I do like some messianic Jewish writings ... incorrectly called Christian, I consider them to be fiction.  There has never been any physical resurrection ... that is absurd.  Literalists and religious materialists would have us believe in zombies.  I don't believe in zombies.  I also don't believe in the insane substitutionary atonement ... nor do I believe in the efficacy of the Torah sacrificial system.  And I don't believe in Santa Claus.

Show me Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh ... and I will believe you.  Except I would have no way to tell which 1st century heretical Jew I was talking to, other than his word, which I have no reason to trust, any more than I can believe a 21st century Gentile.

In my metaphysical/charismatic christology ... I can plainly see Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh.  I don't have to make an absurd belief statement.  But this isn't the Jesus of the Church.

[Randy Carson]

While I do like some messianic Jewish writings ... incorrectly called Christian, I consider them to be fiction.  There has never been any physical resurrection ... that is absurd.  Literalists and religious materialists would have us believe in zombies.  I don't believe in zombies.  I also don't believe in the insane substitutionary atonement ... nor do I believe in the efficacy of the Torah sacrificial system.  And I don't believe in Santa Claus.

I don't believe in Zombies or Santa Claus, either, but your frequent comparison of the case for Christianity with the popular notion of Santa Claus is off-target. It's apples and oranges, and you really ought to think a little more deeply.

Show me Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh ... and I will believe you.  Except I would have no way to tell which 1st century heretical Jew I was talking to, other than his word, which I have no reason to trust, any more than I can believe a 21st century Gentile.

In my metaphysical/charismatic christology ... I can plainly see Jesus, right here, right now, in the flesh.  I don't have to make an absurd belief statement.  But this isn't the Jesus of the Church.

So, as you can see by your own words, there really isn't much I could show you that you would be willing to accept.

[Baruch]

Show me something I could accept?  Yes, your epistemology/historiography pretty much excludes that for me.  But for others, you can keep on trying ;-)  My epistemology (what can I know) is pretty restrictive, though not as restrictive as many regulars here.  I think everything is supernatural, not just in an "age of faith".  I don't think anything is natural.  But then I am not using natural/supernatural as most people do, including most regulars here.  I don't even use it like most theists do ... but some theists would agree with my position .... or if you prefer, I agree with theirs.

For most materialist and skeptics ... supernatural is the same thing as saying "impossible" ... because they define it that way.  Similarly for them ... natural is the same thing as saying "possible" ... again because they define it that way.  The initial struggle with knowledge is in defining terms, and most people fail out of the gate.  Getting a good working definition is the hardest thing ... often called philosophy.  People have struggled with defining "god" for many centuries now ... that must be because it is really hard to define.  One of the problems of defining words, is if the person doing the defining has no actual experience with the thing being defined ... and with the really big questions, that often excludes everyone under 40 ... or maybe even 60 ;-)  Otherwise we are left with a shallow definition, like you get from a dictionary.

So when I see a human being, I am seeing G-d's humanity ... that is the kind of divine image it is.  I experience this with every human being I meet.  Similarly when I see a house cat, I am seeing G-d's cattiness ... that is a different kind of divine image.  I experience this with every house cat I meet.  So for me, G-d isn't in the Bible, or in long ago times, or after death, or after some apocalypse.  I meet G-d at home, at work and in the street.  Everywhere, all the time ... because that is how I define the image of G-d.  And I am satisfied with the "images" ... I don't need to know more, don't want to.  So when I read your posts, I am experiencing one small slice of G-d's humanity ... and that is true whether you think you are a Christian or not.  I don't need to fall off my horse from sun-stroke, like Paul ;-)  What happens in a conversion situation is that you experience the same things you did before, but now they aren't the same things as they were before ... the sensation is the same but the perception is different.