> Is this what you want to do?
Not exactly. When testing for the reliability of the gospels, I tend to look at 1) who wrote them, 2) when were they written, 3) are they consistent with each other, etc.... So the major problems I have with the gospels are: - We don't know who wrote them, and I would argue that they are almost certainly NOT eyewitness accounts. - They were written 40-70 years after the events, when many of Jesus' followers would've been dead or very old in age. - The accounts contradict each other on important details (especially the accounts of Christ's resurrection)
Now I'm not saying we should just throw away the gospels. As I stated, I believe they do contain some accurate cultural and geographical background information, but does this mean we can therefore trust that the stories they narrate actually happened? I don't think so.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:33 pm
The discussions about authorship and dating are long, and I don't think I can write about all four in the same post. Pick which one you want to talk about, and we'll talk about it: Who wrote it, and when it was written. After that we can discuss the alleged contradictions, which I would contend are not contradictions. But first things first. Which Gospel do you want to tackle?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Spiderman » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:11 pm
> You have no evidence of this position. As a matter of fact, all the hard evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction: They were all written by the names attributed to them.
nope. here's what we have. eusebius says that papias said that john the elder said, "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
so, first of all, this is third-hand testimony of the quote about the gospel supposedly being secondhand. good times. however, this doesn't resemble the gospel of mark, which is in fact a regular narrative and not a fragmentary work without narrative. similarly, eusebius says that papias said that john the elder said: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
the gospel of matthew is primarily greek, not aramaic (a charitable reading of "the hebrew language"), and is in fact a modification of the gospel of mark with such sayings from a different source (Q) thrown in for good measure. so we can't even be sure the church fathers were thirdhand talking about the same documents we have today.
> The evidence we have points to the likelihood that the 4 authors were Mt, Mk, Lk, & Jn. The theory you have postulated ("people give monikers to different sources and authors they feel contributed different parts to the gospels") to my knowledge is not characteristic of most scholarship.
Indeed, pseudepigraphica in ancient works is well understood in scholarship. there are about a half-dozen pseudepigraphical epistles attributed to paul in the new testament (7 or so are genuine), and tons of works from the old testament and intertestamental period that bear the names of people who couldn't possibly have written about them. for instance, isaiah chapters 49 onwards describe the babylonian exile as a past event, and name cyrus the great, and so were almost certainly not written by the same isaiah who wrote several hundred years before those events.
> True, but only 2 pieces: Mark 16.9-20 and John 8.1-11.
i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those -- they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
they absolutely do -- in places they aren't cribbing from mark, verbatim. for instance, mark doesn't include a birth narrative (likely because mark is adoptionist). matthew thinks jesus was born before 4 BCE, during the reign of herod the great. luke thinks jesus was born 6 CE, during the herodian tetrarchy, archaelaus's failure as ethnarch, and the census of quirinius legate of syria. this is a ten year discrepancy.
>The Gospels have been shown to be historically and geographically reliable.
one of the places they differ is where they correct mark. for instance, mark has a habit of calling antipas "king", which no jew would have done so. matthew and luke correct this title to "tetrarch".
nope. here's what we have. eusebius says that papias said that john the elder said, "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
so, first of all, this is third-hand testimony of the quote about the gospel supposedly being secondhand. good times. however, this doesn't resemble the gospel of mark, which is in fact a regular narrative and not a fragmentary work without narrative. similarly, eusebius says that papias said that john the elder said: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
the gospel of matthew is primarily greek, not aramaic (a charitable reading of "the hebrew language"), and is in fact a modification of the gospel of mark with such sayings from a different source (Q) thrown in for good measure. so we can't even be sure the church fathers were thirdhand talking about the same documents we have today.
> The evidence we have points to the likelihood that the 4 authors were Mt, Mk, Lk, & Jn. The theory you have postulated ("people give monikers to different sources and authors they feel contributed different parts to the gospels") to my knowledge is not characteristic of most scholarship.
Indeed, pseudepigraphica in ancient works is well understood in scholarship. there are about a half-dozen pseudepigraphical epistles attributed to paul in the new testament (7 or so are genuine), and tons of works from the old testament and intertestamental period that bear the names of people who couldn't possibly have written about them. for instance, isaiah chapters 49 onwards describe the babylonian exile as a past event, and name cyrus the great, and so were almost certainly not written by the same isaiah who wrote several hundred years before those events.
> True, but only 2 pieces: Mark 16.9-20 and John 8.1-11.
i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those -- they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
they absolutely do -- in places they aren't cribbing from mark, verbatim. for instance, mark doesn't include a birth narrative (likely because mark is adoptionist). matthew thinks jesus was born before 4 BCE, during the reign of herod the great. luke thinks jesus was born 6 CE, during the herodian tetrarchy, archaelaus's failure as ethnarch, and the census of quirinius legate of syria. this is a ten year discrepancy.
>The Gospels have been shown to be historically and geographically reliable.
one of the places they differ is where they correct mark. for instance, mark has a habit of calling antipas "king", which no jew would have done so. matthew and luke correct this title to "tetrarch".
- Spiderman
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:26 pm
There is far more to the authorship of the Gospels than what Eusebius says Papias wrote. Since you have focused on Matthew and Mark, I shall focus there as well.
> Mark
1. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly associate Mark with the Gospel. The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author.
2. There is no ancient source that contests Mark's authorship.
3. It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity.
4. The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.
5. The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
> Matthew
The evidence for Matthew’s authorship is also strong and convincing, but not airtight. As with many issues such as this, we have to infer to the most logical conclusion rather than insist on ultimate proof.
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
> pseudepigraphica
A new book by Mike Licona shows that in the first century many authors circulated their works without attribution for review and comment, and only in the last phase was a name put on them, sometimes. That the Gospel writers circulated their works anonymously is in keeping with the era.
> i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those—they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
This isn't true. If you want to assert it, you have to give evidence. Matthew includes 5 large sections of Jesus teaching that isn't in any of the other Gospels. One might even think this is the logia to which Papias refers.
> cribbing
It's no debate that the synoptists used each other's material, but that's likely because there was a collection of circulating material to draw from, and there's good reason to think that circulating material came from the apostles themselves. Mark lived in Jerusalem, and evidence is that Matthew lived there also. It's not a problem that Matthew had a version of the Jesus story in Hebrew that was partially the source for Q (if there was a Q, since no manuscript or evidence of it has ever been discovered), and therefore then the source material for Mark and Matthew (using his own material).
> Quirinius
Quirinius is still being strongly debated. The jury is still out. Some scholars wonder if Josephus mis-dated Quirinius (since Josephus is doubted on some other important matters). Craig Blomberg writes, "Literal translation: 'This census proete Quirinius [was] ruler of Syria.' The text certainly can mean, 'This census was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria,' but one would normally expect an article before ἀπογραφὴ (census) and again before πρώτη (first; before) if that were Luke’s intention. But we could translate 'This census was before [one] when Quirinius was governor.' The census in AD 6 under Quirinius was particularly infamous because it provoked the railed rebellion by Judas the Galilean. So it would be natural for a biography or historian to refer to an earlier census with reference to the later, much better-remembered one." I have plenty of more of the debate, but I don't want to just dump a load. Suffice it to say it is highly debated and still being worked on.
> Antipas
As you say, he was not actually a king, but a tetrarch appointed by the Romans. "King" was most likely a title that was the reflection of common custom and courtesy, even though he was not technically a king. Even so, calling him a king fits well into Mark's thesis of contrasting the false kings of this world and the true King Jesus.
> Mark
1. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly associate Mark with the Gospel. The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author.
2. There is no ancient source that contests Mark's authorship.
3. It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity.
4. The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.
5. The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
> Matthew
The evidence for Matthew’s authorship is also strong and convincing, but not airtight. As with many issues such as this, we have to infer to the most logical conclusion rather than insist on ultimate proof.
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
> pseudepigraphica
A new book by Mike Licona shows that in the first century many authors circulated their works without attribution for review and comment, and only in the last phase was a name put on them, sometimes. That the Gospel writers circulated their works anonymously is in keeping with the era.
> i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those—they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
This isn't true. If you want to assert it, you have to give evidence. Matthew includes 5 large sections of Jesus teaching that isn't in any of the other Gospels. One might even think this is the logia to which Papias refers.
> cribbing
It's no debate that the synoptists used each other's material, but that's likely because there was a collection of circulating material to draw from, and there's good reason to think that circulating material came from the apostles themselves. Mark lived in Jerusalem, and evidence is that Matthew lived there also. It's not a problem that Matthew had a version of the Jesus story in Hebrew that was partially the source for Q (if there was a Q, since no manuscript or evidence of it has ever been discovered), and therefore then the source material for Mark and Matthew (using his own material).
> Quirinius
Quirinius is still being strongly debated. The jury is still out. Some scholars wonder if Josephus mis-dated Quirinius (since Josephus is doubted on some other important matters). Craig Blomberg writes, "Literal translation: 'This census proete Quirinius [was] ruler of Syria.' The text certainly can mean, 'This census was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria,' but one would normally expect an article before ἀπογραφὴ (census) and again before πρώτη (first; before) if that were Luke’s intention. But we could translate 'This census was before [one] when Quirinius was governor.' The census in AD 6 under Quirinius was particularly infamous because it provoked the railed rebellion by Judas the Galilean. So it would be natural for a biography or historian to refer to an earlier census with reference to the later, much better-remembered one." I have plenty of more of the debate, but I don't want to just dump a load. Suffice it to say it is highly debated and still being worked on.
> Antipas
As you say, he was not actually a king, but a tetrarch appointed by the Romans. "King" was most likely a title that was the reflection of common custom and courtesy, even though he was not technically a king. Even so, calling him a king fits well into Mark's thesis of contrasting the false kings of this world and the true King Jesus.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Pree » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:29 pm
Let's start with Matthew. As I see it, there are many reasons why Matthew probably wasn't the author of this gospel... but one thing that always perplexed me specifically is the account of Jesus' triumphal entry. Matthew has Jesus riding on 2 donkeys. In all other gospels, Jesus clearly only rode 1 donkey, but Matthew says otherwise in order to have Jesus fulfill an OT prophecy. This might seem like a small detail but Matthew was there! He was an eyewitness. He was in a position to know whether Jesus rode on 1 donkey or 2. Based on this account, I don't know how Christians still believe Matthew wrote this.
- Pree
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:34 pm
Here are some reasons I believe Matthew wrote Matthew:
The evidence for Matthew’s authorship is also strong and convincing, but not airtight. As with many issues such as this, we have to infer to the most logical conclusion rather than insist on ultimate proof.
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
> Matthew's account of the Triumphal Entry
It is my position that Jesus requested both animals, as Matthew records, but it was the colt that was the important one, and the one that Jesus rode. That's the one the other Gospel writers mention, because it was the only one that was important.
I saw a collision a few years ago. A bus was in front of a car going through the neighborhood. The driver of the car seemed to be impatient and seemed to be swerving back and forth, trying to figure out how to get past the bus. The driver of the car finally took an opportunity and rushed around the driver's side of the bus, unfortunately just as the bus was making a left hand turn onto a side street. Crunch!
Now, if I told one friend, "I saw a bus turn right into a car and smash it," I would be telling the truth. If I told another friend, "I saw a car trying to swerve around a bus, and it smashed right into it!", I would also be telling the truth.
Suppose I asked my wife to bring down two shirts for me when she came down, and she did. I put one of them on, and turned and said to my friend, "My wife brought this down for me." I would be telling the truth, even though I didn't mention both shirts.
No Gospel writer told everything, just as no historian tells everything. They select material to fit their purpose.
The evidence for Matthew’s authorship is also strong and convincing, but not airtight. As with many issues such as this, we have to infer to the most logical conclusion rather than insist on ultimate proof.
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
> Matthew's account of the Triumphal Entry
It is my position that Jesus requested both animals, as Matthew records, but it was the colt that was the important one, and the one that Jesus rode. That's the one the other Gospel writers mention, because it was the only one that was important.
I saw a collision a few years ago. A bus was in front of a car going through the neighborhood. The driver of the car seemed to be impatient and seemed to be swerving back and forth, trying to figure out how to get past the bus. The driver of the car finally took an opportunity and rushed around the driver's side of the bus, unfortunately just as the bus was making a left hand turn onto a side street. Crunch!
Now, if I told one friend, "I saw a bus turn right into a car and smash it," I would be telling the truth. If I told another friend, "I saw a car trying to swerve around a bus, and it smashed right into it!", I would also be telling the truth.
Suppose I asked my wife to bring down two shirts for me when she came down, and she did. I put one of them on, and turned and said to my friend, "My wife brought this down for me." I would be telling the truth, even though I didn't mention both shirts.
No Gospel writer told everything, just as no historian tells everything. They select material to fit their purpose.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Zarcon Speaks » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:42 pm
> The Gospels have been shown to be historically and geographically reliable.
There are numerous errors of geography in Mark's gospel, and he's considered to be the first and the most copied gospel author. I believe Luke spends a lot of text correcting his errors.
> They have also been shown to corroborate with known documentary and archaeological data and artifacts.
Source?
> You have no evidence of this position. As a matter of fact, all the hard evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction: They were all written by the names attributed to them.
There are no credible historians who believe this. The names were assigned in the 2nd century as it became important to the nascent religious movement to have credible founders, and all the gospels were written anonymously. (None are "signed" or reference an author's name except for a vague reference in John. It's guesswork, and by modern standards it's considered shoddy guesswork.)
> The theory you have postulated ("people give monikers to different sources and authors they feel contributed different parts to the gospels") to my knowledge is not characteristic of most scholarship.
You need to read more scholarship, or maybe any scholarship.
> This is true, but of no particular consequence. It's decades after Bill Clinton's debacle with Monica Lewinsky, but the story is still easy to get at.
Tell me, on what cable channel did Judea watch CNN? How many archives of the Judean Saturday Post are still in existence? How did an illiterate community without major news sources manage to reach a level of knowledge commensurate with modern cable news and newspaper distribution?
> True, but only 2 pieces: Mark 16.9-20 and John 8.1-11.
That appears to be not even close to being true. A simple Google search yields 1 and 2.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
Really? The easiest example is the discrepancies in genealogies, but there are plenty more.
> The other "Gospels" were largely written CENTURIES later, and were never contenders for truth.
Not even close.
> A trip through each Gospel gives evidence.
What evidence? Some place names line up, maybe? This sounds like it's along the lines of "Spiderman takes place in New York City; I know there's a New York City, so therefore there must be a Spiderman."
There are numerous errors of geography in Mark's gospel, and he's considered to be the first and the most copied gospel author. I believe Luke spends a lot of text correcting his errors.
> They have also been shown to corroborate with known documentary and archaeological data and artifacts.
Source?
> You have no evidence of this position. As a matter of fact, all the hard evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction: They were all written by the names attributed to them.
There are no credible historians who believe this. The names were assigned in the 2nd century as it became important to the nascent religious movement to have credible founders, and all the gospels were written anonymously. (None are "signed" or reference an author's name except for a vague reference in John. It's guesswork, and by modern standards it's considered shoddy guesswork.)
> The theory you have postulated ("people give monikers to different sources and authors they feel contributed different parts to the gospels") to my knowledge is not characteristic of most scholarship.
You need to read more scholarship, or maybe any scholarship.
> This is true, but of no particular consequence. It's decades after Bill Clinton's debacle with Monica Lewinsky, but the story is still easy to get at.
Tell me, on what cable channel did Judea watch CNN? How many archives of the Judean Saturday Post are still in existence? How did an illiterate community without major news sources manage to reach a level of knowledge commensurate with modern cable news and newspaper distribution?
> True, but only 2 pieces: Mark 16.9-20 and John 8.1-11.
That appears to be not even close to being true. A simple Google search yields 1 and 2.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
Really? The easiest example is the discrepancies in genealogies, but there are plenty more.
> The other "Gospels" were largely written CENTURIES later, and were never contenders for truth.
Not even close.
> A trip through each Gospel gives evidence.
What evidence? Some place names line up, maybe? This sounds like it's along the lines of "Spiderman takes place in New York City; I know there's a New York City, so therefore there must be a Spiderman."
- Zarcon Speaks
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:29 pm
> There are numerous errors of geography in Mark's gospel
What are they? Let's discuss them.
> "They have also been shown to corroborate with known documentary and archaeological data and artifacts" Source?
My own study. For instance, if we just start through the Gospel of Luke...
- 1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in *m. Tamid* 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
We're only to v. 15 of one Gospel.
> The names were assigned in the 2nd century as it became important to the nascent religious movement to have credible founders, and all the gospels were written anonymously.
There is no evidence to this theory. The evidence we have points in a different direction.
- There is a fragment of John from AD 125. It is widely believed that the other 3 Gospels were written well before John.
- the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
- If you're looking for a "credible founder," Mark is not your guy. He wasn't a disciple, he was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas, and he was not viewed as a significant character in the 1st century. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
- The writing of the first Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Nobody. If they were going to slap a name on it, they would choose a recognized teacher who would give the account appeal and credibility. Mark is not that guy.
- It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
- We have no evidence that Mark's authorship was ever in contention.
> Tell me, on what cable channel did Judea watch CNN?
Duh. It was an oral rhetorical culture. They were taught to memorize and to remember, in great contrast to our culture.
> Illiterate...
Probably not Palestine in the 1st century. The Jewish people valued education, and most boys (and even some girls) were taught to read. Many boys had large portions of the Torah memorized by the time of their bar mitzvah. Jesus himself was a carpenter, but he could read and write. Their reading skills may not have been great (non-literate), but to accuse them of being illiterate is not accurate.
> That appears to be not even close to being true.
It's close, but you're right. There are a smattering of verses here and there that are not regarded as authentic. It's just a handful.
> the Genealogies
You're right that there are discrepancies between the two genealogies that have yet to be resolved. There are many theories about that, and some of them are even credible! It won't be resolved until something new comes to light. Interestingly, the Church Fathers don't seem to have a problem with them. I would guess they knew something that has been lost to time.
> What evidence?
For instance, my tracing through just a small portion of Luke, above. There is so much more.
> This sounds like it's along the lines of "Spiderman takes place in New York City; I know there's a New York City, so therefore there must be a Spiderman."
It's not like this at all. The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing.
What are they? Let's discuss them.
> "They have also been shown to corroborate with known documentary and archaeological data and artifacts" Source?
My own study. For instance, if we just start through the Gospel of Luke...
- 1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in *m. Tamid* 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
We're only to v. 15 of one Gospel.
> The names were assigned in the 2nd century as it became important to the nascent religious movement to have credible founders, and all the gospels were written anonymously.
There is no evidence to this theory. The evidence we have points in a different direction.
- There is a fragment of John from AD 125. It is widely believed that the other 3 Gospels were written well before John.
- the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
- If you're looking for a "credible founder," Mark is not your guy. He wasn't a disciple, he was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas, and he was not viewed as a significant character in the 1st century. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
- The writing of the first Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Nobody. If they were going to slap a name on it, they would choose a recognized teacher who would give the account appeal and credibility. Mark is not that guy.
- It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
- We have no evidence that Mark's authorship was ever in contention.
> Tell me, on what cable channel did Judea watch CNN?
Duh. It was an oral rhetorical culture. They were taught to memorize and to remember, in great contrast to our culture.
> Illiterate...
Probably not Palestine in the 1st century. The Jewish people valued education, and most boys (and even some girls) were taught to read. Many boys had large portions of the Torah memorized by the time of their bar mitzvah. Jesus himself was a carpenter, but he could read and write. Their reading skills may not have been great (non-literate), but to accuse them of being illiterate is not accurate.
> That appears to be not even close to being true.
It's close, but you're right. There are a smattering of verses here and there that are not regarded as authentic. It's just a handful.
> the Genealogies
You're right that there are discrepancies between the two genealogies that have yet to be resolved. There are many theories about that, and some of them are even credible! It won't be resolved until something new comes to light. Interestingly, the Church Fathers don't seem to have a problem with them. I would guess they knew something that has been lost to time.
> What evidence?
For instance, my tracing through just a small portion of Luke, above. There is so much more.
> This sounds like it's along the lines of "Spiderman takes place in New York City; I know there's a New York City, so therefore there must be a Spiderman."
It's not like this at all. The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Farmer 77 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:32 pm
> The Gospels have been shown to be historically and geographically reliable
And so has spiderman. Why, we have stories where he has visited real places, we have pictures of him meeting real people.... His culture and language show he is definitely not an imposter from another place and era.
>all the hard evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction: They were all written by the names attributed to them.
It's not hard evidence, it's weak evidence. And the evidence against them is equally weak - basically if we didn't know who wrote them, someone would have given the author a name anyway. So weak evidence on both sides for htat one.
> This is true, but of no particular consequence. It's decades after Bill Clinton's debacle with Monica Lewinsky, but the story is still easy to get at.
Okay, now do it without referring to internet, newsprint, or any other mass media. Reconstruct the whole timeline of the lewinsky scandal, but you have to do any travel by foot or boat, and no phone calls allowed. Regarding the gospels, it's a legit criticism.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
That's BS. Look at the nativity stories. There is almost zero overlap. There's simply no way that two people could legitimately be telling the actual truth with no prevarication or invention, and yet one guy only tells odd-numbered details, another guy only tells even-numbered details. One guy describes a massive baby massacre documented nowhere else in history, and doesn't even feel like mentioning a census that must have disrupted the lives of everyone in the whole region. The other guy doesn't feel like a massive baby massacre is worth mentioning, but goes into detail about a census unlike any in recorded history. It beggars belief.
> A trip through each Gospel gives evidence.
Randomly chosen references to real things do not make a story true, especially when nobody's disputing the parts you're crowing about. Did you know I met Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theater? A trip through my previous sentence gives evidence - Lincoln was real, and he really did go to that place that one time.
And so has spiderman. Why, we have stories where he has visited real places, we have pictures of him meeting real people.... His culture and language show he is definitely not an imposter from another place and era.
>all the hard evidence we have points in exactly the opposite direction: They were all written by the names attributed to them.
It's not hard evidence, it's weak evidence. And the evidence against them is equally weak - basically if we didn't know who wrote them, someone would have given the author a name anyway. So weak evidence on both sides for htat one.
> This is true, but of no particular consequence. It's decades after Bill Clinton's debacle with Monica Lewinsky, but the story is still easy to get at.
Okay, now do it without referring to internet, newsprint, or any other mass media. Reconstruct the whole timeline of the lewinsky scandal, but you have to do any travel by foot or boat, and no phone calls allowed. Regarding the gospels, it's a legit criticism.
> Sometimes they approach a story from different perspectives and vantage points, but I would contend they don't contradict.
That's BS. Look at the nativity stories. There is almost zero overlap. There's simply no way that two people could legitimately be telling the actual truth with no prevarication or invention, and yet one guy only tells odd-numbered details, another guy only tells even-numbered details. One guy describes a massive baby massacre documented nowhere else in history, and doesn't even feel like mentioning a census that must have disrupted the lives of everyone in the whole region. The other guy doesn't feel like a massive baby massacre is worth mentioning, but goes into detail about a census unlike any in recorded history. It beggars belief.
> A trip through each Gospel gives evidence.
Randomly chosen references to real things do not make a story true, especially when nobody's disputing the parts you're crowing about. Did you know I met Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theater? A trip through my previous sentence gives evidence - Lincoln was real, and he really did go to that place that one time.
- Farmer 77
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:42 pm
> And so has spiderman.
The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing.
> It's not hard evidence, it's weak evidence.
It's almost too much to talk about in one post, but arguing over generalities doesn't get us very far. As far as Mark's Gospel...
- the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
- If you're looking for a "credible founder," Mark is not your guy. He wasn't a disciple, he was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas, and he was not viewed as a significant character in the 1st century. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
- The writing of the first Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Nobody. If they were going to slap a name on it, they would choose a recognized teacher who would give the account appeal and credibility. Mark is not that guy.
- It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
- We have no evidence that Mark's authorship was ever in contention.
As far as Matthew's Gospel...
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
The evidence is heavily in Matthew's favor.
> Okay, now do it without referring to internet, newsprint, or any other mass media.
One doesn't need the Internet to know the truth. One doesn't need newsprint to know the truth about a story. Why, even newsprint can be FAKE NEWS! If two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, which I believe they were based on the evidence, then they didn't need mass media to know what happened. And since Matthew and Mark both lived in Jerusalem, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess they may have known each other. There's even some speculation that Mark knew Jesus. You don't need mass media to get at the truth.
> The nativity stories
Joseph Fitzmyer lists where the two infancy narrative agree:
Where Luke and Matthew’s infancy narratives agree:
1. Jesus’ birth is related to the reign of Herod (Lk. 1.5; Mt. 2.1).
2. Mary, his mother to be, is a virgin engaged to Joseph, but they have not yet come to live together (Lk. 1.27, 34; 2.5; Mt. 1.18)
3. Joseph is of the house and lineage of David (Lk. 1.27; 2.4; Mt. 1.16, 20)
4. An angel from heaven announces the coming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1.28-30; Mt. 1.20-21).
5. Jesus is recognized himself to be a son of David (Lk. 1.32; Mt. 1.1).
6. Jesus’ conception is to take place through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1.35; Mt. 1.18, 20).
7. Joseph is not involved in the conception (Lk. 1.34; Mt. 1.18-25).
8. The name Jesus is imposed by heaven prior to his birth (Lk. 1.31; Mt. 1.21).
9. The angel identifies Jesus as Savior (Lk. 2.11; Mt. 1.21).
10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 1.24-25).
11. Jesus is born at Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 2.1).
12. Jesus settles, with Mary and Joseph, in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk. 2.39, 51; Mt. 2.22-23).
So I beg to differ that "there is almost zero overlap."
> Randomly chosen references
No, an abundance of references. For instance, in just the first 15 verses of Luke...
-1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in m. Tamid 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
We've only done 15 verses of one Gospel! There's plenty of evidence of historical reliability, and so much is corroborated by extrabibilical sources.
The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing.
> It's not hard evidence, it's weak evidence.
It's almost too much to talk about in one post, but arguing over generalities doesn't get us very far. As far as Mark's Gospel...
- the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
- If you're looking for a "credible founder," Mark is not your guy. He wasn't a disciple, he was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas, and he was not viewed as a significant character in the 1st century. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
- The writing of the first Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Nobody. If they were going to slap a name on it, they would choose a recognized teacher who would give the account appeal and credibility. Mark is not that guy.
- It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
- We have no evidence that Mark's authorship was ever in contention.
As far as Matthew's Gospel...
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
The evidence is heavily in Matthew's favor.
> Okay, now do it without referring to internet, newsprint, or any other mass media.
One doesn't need the Internet to know the truth. One doesn't need newsprint to know the truth about a story. Why, even newsprint can be FAKE NEWS! If two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, which I believe they were based on the evidence, then they didn't need mass media to know what happened. And since Matthew and Mark both lived in Jerusalem, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess they may have known each other. There's even some speculation that Mark knew Jesus. You don't need mass media to get at the truth.
> The nativity stories
Joseph Fitzmyer lists where the two infancy narrative agree:
Where Luke and Matthew’s infancy narratives agree:
1. Jesus’ birth is related to the reign of Herod (Lk. 1.5; Mt. 2.1).
2. Mary, his mother to be, is a virgin engaged to Joseph, but they have not yet come to live together (Lk. 1.27, 34; 2.5; Mt. 1.18)
3. Joseph is of the house and lineage of David (Lk. 1.27; 2.4; Mt. 1.16, 20)
4. An angel from heaven announces the coming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1.28-30; Mt. 1.20-21).
5. Jesus is recognized himself to be a son of David (Lk. 1.32; Mt. 1.1).
6. Jesus’ conception is to take place through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1.35; Mt. 1.18, 20).
7. Joseph is not involved in the conception (Lk. 1.34; Mt. 1.18-25).
8. The name Jesus is imposed by heaven prior to his birth (Lk. 1.31; Mt. 1.21).
9. The angel identifies Jesus as Savior (Lk. 2.11; Mt. 1.21).
10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 1.24-25).
11. Jesus is born at Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 2.1).
12. Jesus settles, with Mary and Joseph, in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk. 2.39, 51; Mt. 2.22-23).
So I beg to differ that "there is almost zero overlap."
> Randomly chosen references
No, an abundance of references. For instance, in just the first 15 verses of Luke...
-1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in m. Tamid 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
We've only done 15 verses of one Gospel! There's plenty of evidence of historical reliability, and so much is corroborated by extrabibilical sources.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest