I just don't find any of your arguments convincing. I've read too much about the history of the gospels, and I know something about how stories emerge, develop, morph, and take on new meanings over time. The synoptic gospels appear to be based largely on Mark with some additional common material added to Luke and Matthew. There seem to be obvious tweaks to make the story of Jesus fulfill various prophecies. There are miracles that are unlikely to have happened, especially the ones where others at the time would have noticed, but nobody mentions them. There are passages where Jesus is alone and yet the authors of the gospels know what he did and said. The authors get some basic history wrong, as well as geography.
It reads exactly as I'd expect mythology to read, and there's no reason to believe that any of the supernatural or miraculous events actually happened. In fact, it's very difficult to know if any of it is true.
I think a guy that Jesus is based on lived, but I think who he was and what he said is largely lost to time.
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 Farmer 77 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:46 pm
> 1.) Acts,
With you so far.
> 2.) The
Okay, still following
> 3.) The writer
This claim looks unsupported. You've failed to rule out causes like slow speed of hand-scribed illegal literature, and regional variations in belief (like proto-denominations).
> 4.) Many of the expressions in Acts
This could be due to other factors, such as regional variation.
> 5.) Acts deals with issues
Again, could just be a matter of different audiences. Jews would care about whether gentiles were allowed to be christian. Gentiles in a gentile church who have a guy ministering directly to them would take that for granted. Plus, remember that Paul said a lot of things face-to-face. His letters would not necessarily feel obligated to retread stuff that was part of his standard spiel.
> 6.)
ditto.
So, a lot of the links in your chain need support if you want them to be more than faith-based.
> The creed from 1 Cor. 15.3-7, for instance, is known to be from within 2-5 years of Jesus' death. There are other such creeds in circulation very early
I'll grant that specific creed. The fact that there are others is an unsupported hand-wave. But as long as we're on that topic, no one can demonstrate how widespread these stories were - just that one guy claims to have heard them, and we assume from some contextual hints that it was from another specific guy.
> The first century was a rhetorical culture, transitioning from oral to written as ours is transitioning from written to digital. Because some of the population were non-literate (different than illiterate), a premium was placed on the spoken word. Memory skills were well developed.
This is all irrelevant, it seems to be an argument against somebody who claimed that people back then were incapable of transmitting text accurately. I don't know who made that argument, it wasn't me. In fact, I think it's pretty well acknowledged that people are still capable of such a feat today, so fine. There were also people, then and now, who embellish stories, or who caulk the gaps of a skeletal outline with invented filler.
> There were rules, particularly for content that was deemed important or sacred.
Ah ha! This one addresses my specific criticism. Unfortunately, it's just a bald assertion. And double unfortunately, you can't possibly show that the people who transmitted these stories were from the human tape recorder school, instead of whatever school many of today's christian preachers go to, where you take important lessons and just make up stories or testimonies that illustrate it.
> The evidence we have points to Mt, Mk., Lk, and Jn as the authors. We have no evidence to the contrary.
Who the f*** cares whether there's any evidence contrary to your hypothesis? You have no idea if there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, and you have no idea whether I'm left or right handed, and you have no idea if I've ever kissed Jane Goodall.
Quick, tell me, do I have an even or odd number of M&Ms left in this package? Both Yes and No would be irresponsible decisions based on lack of good evidence. But "I don't know" is not a conclusion. It's simply where you remain, when someone has done an insufficient job of trying support their favored conclusion. To quote a famous Isaac Asimov story, INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER. also known as, the null hypothesis.
With you so far.
> 2.) The
Okay, still following
> 3.) The writer
This claim looks unsupported. You've failed to rule out causes like slow speed of hand-scribed illegal literature, and regional variations in belief (like proto-denominations).
> 4.) Many of the expressions in Acts
This could be due to other factors, such as regional variation.
> 5.) Acts deals with issues
Again, could just be a matter of different audiences. Jews would care about whether gentiles were allowed to be christian. Gentiles in a gentile church who have a guy ministering directly to them would take that for granted. Plus, remember that Paul said a lot of things face-to-face. His letters would not necessarily feel obligated to retread stuff that was part of his standard spiel.
> 6.)
ditto.
So, a lot of the links in your chain need support if you want them to be more than faith-based.
> The creed from 1 Cor. 15.3-7, for instance, is known to be from within 2-5 years of Jesus' death. There are other such creeds in circulation very early
I'll grant that specific creed. The fact that there are others is an unsupported hand-wave. But as long as we're on that topic, no one can demonstrate how widespread these stories were - just that one guy claims to have heard them, and we assume from some contextual hints that it was from another specific guy.
> The first century was a rhetorical culture, transitioning from oral to written as ours is transitioning from written to digital. Because some of the population were non-literate (different than illiterate), a premium was placed on the spoken word. Memory skills were well developed.
This is all irrelevant, it seems to be an argument against somebody who claimed that people back then were incapable of transmitting text accurately. I don't know who made that argument, it wasn't me. In fact, I think it's pretty well acknowledged that people are still capable of such a feat today, so fine. There were also people, then and now, who embellish stories, or who caulk the gaps of a skeletal outline with invented filler.
> There were rules, particularly for content that was deemed important or sacred.
Ah ha! This one addresses my specific criticism. Unfortunately, it's just a bald assertion. And double unfortunately, you can't possibly show that the people who transmitted these stories were from the human tape recorder school, instead of whatever school many of today's christian preachers go to, where you take important lessons and just make up stories or testimonies that illustrate it.
> The evidence we have points to Mt, Mk., Lk, and Jn as the authors. We have no evidence to the contrary.
Who the f*** cares whether there's any evidence contrary to your hypothesis? You have no idea if there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, and you have no idea whether I'm left or right handed, and you have no idea if I've ever kissed Jane Goodall.
Quick, tell me, do I have an even or odd number of M&Ms left in this package? Both Yes and No would be irresponsible decisions based on lack of good evidence. But "I don't know" is not a conclusion. It's simply where you remain, when someone has done an insufficient job of trying support their favored conclusion. To quote a famous Isaac Asimov story, INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER. also known as, the null hypothesis.
- Farmer 77
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:48 pm
OK, I've presented my case and seen your rebuttal. I think it's appropriate for you to present your case for who wrote the Gospels, and when they were written. I keep a list of both sides of the argument, so I would be pleased if you would share your material.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Turnkey » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:15 pm
It's suspicious that you won't answer a very basic question. It seems like you don't want to analyze any one piece of evidence itself, you like to consider everything all at once which makes analysis a nearly incompletable task.
- Turnkey
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:15 pm
It shouldn't be suspicious. It just doesn't take us very far to analyze any one piece of evidence itself. There is no such thing as "the best piece" (back to the Lego analogy). We can start anywhere with something so general, but OK.
King Herod (Herod the Great). The Gospels claim he was ruler over an area including Judea at the time of Jesus' birth (Mt. 2.1). Since the time of Jesus' birth is unknown (though generally thought to be in about 7-6 BC), this seems reliable. Josephus says Herod reigned from 40-4 BC. If that's the case, and there's every reason to consider it to be true, Jesus couldn't have been born later than about 5 BC, and Herod would have been about 70.
It's true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until AD 6, but the Matthew text doesn't claim it was a Roman province, only that it was known as Judea. "Judea" was understood to be "the land of the Jews," i.e., Palestine. Herod's dominion also included Galilee, Samaria, and much of Perea and Coele-Syria.
Herod's father had appointed him to be governor of Galilee. Then he was appointed tetrarch by Antony, and proclaimed "king" by Octavius and Antony in 40 BC, so the title "King Herod" is an accurate one, even though he was technically a tetrarch.
In Matthew 2 it says the magi came to visit Herod in Jerusalem, which is reliable information. He had a palace there. It also is reliable that Herod was disturbed (along with the city) when he heard the news of a rival king (Mt. 2.3); Herod didn't tolerate rivals very well.
Mt. 2.4 says he called together the chief priests and teachers of the law to counsel him on the messianic prophecies. Members of the Sanhedrin lived in Jerusalem and would give such counsel to the king as reported.
Mt. 2.16 says Herod was furious when he realized he had been outwitted, and that he gave orders for all the children in the vicinity of Ramah and Bethlehem to be slaughtered. We have no corroborating record of this particular action, but there's no particular reason to think that a secretive raid on a tiny village would make headlines. Herod's murderous atrocities are well known, however, so it doesn't take much thought to consider the possibility of this as reasonable. Josephus said (Antiquities xvii.8.1), "Herod was a man who showed great barbarity equally toward all, who was a slave to his passions and too high up to consider what was the right things to do."
Mt. 2.19 has Herod dying shortly thereafter, while Jesus was still a young child. This is in agreement with Josephus's dating of his death in 4 BC.
That's all I'm aware that the Bible says about Herod the Great, but it's both accurate and reliable. Is this what you're after?
King Herod (Herod the Great). The Gospels claim he was ruler over an area including Judea at the time of Jesus' birth (Mt. 2.1). Since the time of Jesus' birth is unknown (though generally thought to be in about 7-6 BC), this seems reliable. Josephus says Herod reigned from 40-4 BC. If that's the case, and there's every reason to consider it to be true, Jesus couldn't have been born later than about 5 BC, and Herod would have been about 70.
It's true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until AD 6, but the Matthew text doesn't claim it was a Roman province, only that it was known as Judea. "Judea" was understood to be "the land of the Jews," i.e., Palestine. Herod's dominion also included Galilee, Samaria, and much of Perea and Coele-Syria.
Herod's father had appointed him to be governor of Galilee. Then he was appointed tetrarch by Antony, and proclaimed "king" by Octavius and Antony in 40 BC, so the title "King Herod" is an accurate one, even though he was technically a tetrarch.
In Matthew 2 it says the magi came to visit Herod in Jerusalem, which is reliable information. He had a palace there. It also is reliable that Herod was disturbed (along with the city) when he heard the news of a rival king (Mt. 2.3); Herod didn't tolerate rivals very well.
Mt. 2.4 says he called together the chief priests and teachers of the law to counsel him on the messianic prophecies. Members of the Sanhedrin lived in Jerusalem and would give such counsel to the king as reported.
Mt. 2.16 says Herod was furious when he realized he had been outwitted, and that he gave orders for all the children in the vicinity of Ramah and Bethlehem to be slaughtered. We have no corroborating record of this particular action, but there's no particular reason to think that a secretive raid on a tiny village would make headlines. Herod's murderous atrocities are well known, however, so it doesn't take much thought to consider the possibility of this as reasonable. Josephus said (Antiquities xvii.8.1), "Herod was a man who showed great barbarity equally toward all, who was a slave to his passions and too high up to consider what was the right things to do."
Mt. 2.19 has Herod dying shortly thereafter, while Jesus was still a young child. This is in agreement with Josephus's dating of his death in 4 BC.
That's all I'm aware that the Bible says about Herod the Great, but it's both accurate and reliable. Is this what you're after?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Spiderman » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:28 pm
> 1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
note that luke heavily implies these other gospels are wrong; he's trying to set the record straight.
either he's talking about the other gospels that we have -- mark, and matthew -- or he's talking about gospels we don't have. it's probably the latter, in which case.... no. we don't have those.
> It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
this is an argument against the authority of matthew and luke, though. and against the traditional attribution of matthew.
> It was an oral rhetorical culture. They were taught to memorize and to remember, in great contrast to our culture.
i don't have hard evidence of this, but i think arguments about oral cultures are overstated. there is a huge literary and scribal tradition in ancient judah, and all the evidence that we have is of texts being copied from texts. certainly there is some oral component, but even the literarily dependent texts stray from one another pretty widely.
note that luke heavily implies these other gospels are wrong; he's trying to set the record straight.
either he's talking about the other gospels that we have -- mark, and matthew -- or he's talking about gospels we don't have. it's probably the latter, in which case.... no. we don't have those.
> It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
this is an argument against the authority of matthew and luke, though. and against the traditional attribution of matthew.
> It was an oral rhetorical culture. They were taught to memorize and to remember, in great contrast to our culture.
i don't have hard evidence of this, but i think arguments about oral cultures are overstated. there is a huge literary and scribal tradition in ancient judah, and all the evidence that we have is of texts being copied from texts. certainly there is some oral component, but even the literarily dependent texts stray from one another pretty widely.
- Spiderman
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:40 pm
> note that luke heavily implies these other gospels are wrong; he's trying to set the record straight
Hmm, I don't see that there. He says "many have undertaken to draw up an account...and it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account." He explicitly says that the other accounts were of "things that were fulfilled among us," and that "they were handed down to us by eyewitnesses." I don't see any implication that those accounts are wrong. Just the opposite, actually.
It's interesting also that he is referring to written accounts (Lk. 1.1), not just oral ones, connoting the existence of other written Gospels in addition to the oral accounts (Lk. 1.2). He is most likely talking about Mark and Matthew, since he seems to be speaking about more than one such Gospel author ("many" of v. 1).
> this is an argument against the authority of matthew and luke, though
I don't see why. Luke was not an eyewitness and claims to have done research, and we assume coming from both interviews and documents. Why does that discredit Luke? Our investigative journalists do the same thing.
The strongest argument against the traditional attribution of Matthew is that as an eyewitness he would not have had to draw from Mark. But it supposed that Mark got much of his information from Peter (the same eyewitness source as Matthew), and since Matthew lived in Jerusalem, it's very reasonable to think that he was a source for Q. it speaks of the possibility of reliability all around.
But enough about me! : )
I have presented my evidence and seen it refuted. I'm curious now to see your evidence for the authorship and dating of the Gospels. I keep a list of both sides of the argument, so I would be pleased if you would share your material.
Since you don't like my case, I would like to see the opposing side.
Hmm, I don't see that there. He says "many have undertaken to draw up an account...and it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account." He explicitly says that the other accounts were of "things that were fulfilled among us," and that "they were handed down to us by eyewitnesses." I don't see any implication that those accounts are wrong. Just the opposite, actually.
It's interesting also that he is referring to written accounts (Lk. 1.1), not just oral ones, connoting the existence of other written Gospels in addition to the oral accounts (Lk. 1.2). He is most likely talking about Mark and Matthew, since he seems to be speaking about more than one such Gospel author ("many" of v. 1).
> this is an argument against the authority of matthew and luke, though
I don't see why. Luke was not an eyewitness and claims to have done research, and we assume coming from both interviews and documents. Why does that discredit Luke? Our investigative journalists do the same thing.
The strongest argument against the traditional attribution of Matthew is that as an eyewitness he would not have had to draw from Mark. But it supposed that Mark got much of his information from Peter (the same eyewitness source as Matthew), and since Matthew lived in Jerusalem, it's very reasonable to think that he was a source for Q. it speaks of the possibility of reliability all around.
But enough about me! : )
I have presented my evidence and seen it refuted. I'm curious now to see your evidence for the authorship and dating of the Gospels. I keep a list of both sides of the argument, so I would be pleased if you would share your material.
Since you don't like my case, I would like to see the opposing side.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Farmer 77 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:47 pm
> I think it's appropriate for you to present your case for who wrote the Gospels, and when they were written.
I have been utterly consistent, explicit, and clear on the answer to this, from the very beginning.
I do not know who wrote the gospels. I do not know exactly when they were written, but I accept the same timeframes you'll see if you just look at wikipedia. I'm not going to present evidence that it was Billy Bob The Roman Prankster, and frankly I'm just flabbergasted that you could ask such a mind-blowingly bizarre question. What on earth is happening here?
I Don't Know is an acceptable answer, all by itself. And it is preferrable to "It was Mark, and it was written in the following year", when all you have to support that is the flimsiest of evidence.
I have been utterly consistent, explicit, and clear on the answer to this, from the very beginning.
I do not know who wrote the gospels. I do not know exactly when they were written, but I accept the same timeframes you'll see if you just look at wikipedia. I'm not going to present evidence that it was Billy Bob The Roman Prankster, and frankly I'm just flabbergasted that you could ask such a mind-blowingly bizarre question. What on earth is happening here?
I Don't Know is an acceptable answer, all by itself. And it is preferrable to "It was Mark, and it was written in the following year", when all you have to support that is the flimsiest of evidence.
- Farmer 77
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:52 pm
I get it that you say you don't know who wrote the Gospels, but you must have a case against it being Matthew. Historical attribution is unanimously Matthew, and there are plenty of other reasons for it being Matthew, so for you to say "I don't think that's strong enough" says that the evidence against Matthew is stronger. That's what I want to see. Why do you think the Gospel is written by someone other than Matthew (a strong enough case so that we can accept "I don't know")?
Why is "I don't know" preferable to "It was Mark"? There must be evidence in a contrary direction sufficient enough to undo the conclusion "It was Mark and it was written in the following year." That's what I'm curious to see.
Why is "I don't know" preferable to "It was Mark"? There must be evidence in a contrary direction sufficient enough to undo the conclusion "It was Mark and it was written in the following year." That's what I'm curious to see.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Spiderman » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:56 pm
> I don't see any implication that those accounts are wrong. Just the opposite, actually.
if they were right, and complete, why would it seem good to luke to write another one? you have to read between the lines, a little.
> It's interesting also that he is referring to written accounts (Lk. 1.1), not just oral ones, connoting the existence of other written Gospels in addition to the oral accounts (Lk. 1.2).
yes, absolutely. and we know he was aware of at least two written gospels, mark and Q.
> He is most likely talking about Mark and Matthew,
it's unclear whether or not he would be aware of matthew. the scholarly consensus is that he was not, and obtained the shared matthean content from a common source, Q.
> The strongest argument against the traditional attribution of Matthew is that as an eyewitness he would not have had to draw from Mark. But it supposed that Mark got much of his information from Peter (the same eyewitness source as Matthew),
it's clear that matthew is not simply drawing from a common source with mark, but that matthew is copying mark directly.
and since Matthew lived in Jerusalem, it's very reasonable to think that he was a source for Q. it speaks of the possibility of reliability all around.
matthew the person, yes, may indeed be the source for Q. this is kind of a pet theory i have; the traditional attribution is that matthew wrote a sayings gospel in aramaic, which sounds an awful lot like a) the kind of thing an actual witness would write, and b) like and original language source for Q, which is greek. the gospel of matthew may have taken on that name because it contained the source that matthew actually wrote.
i like this idea, but i don't know if there's any way to provide evidence for it.
> I have presented my evidence and seen it refuted. I'm curious now to see your evidence for the authorship and dating of the Gospels.
there isn't a clear academic picture of who, specifically, wrote the gospels. like, which individuals and what their names were. we may never know this.
mark seems to have been a reasonably educated greek speaker, who did not live in palestine. he makes several historical and geographical errors, and writes a number of latin words and phrases that together indicate a post-70 CE, foreign, latin context. mark contains a number of anti-petrine statements, and has the church move out of jerusalem at the end, so it's not likely that it actually came from peter's camp. paul reports that peter was in jerusalem following the crucifixion.
if they were right, and complete, why would it seem good to luke to write another one? you have to read between the lines, a little.
> It's interesting also that he is referring to written accounts (Lk. 1.1), not just oral ones, connoting the existence of other written Gospels in addition to the oral accounts (Lk. 1.2).
yes, absolutely. and we know he was aware of at least two written gospels, mark and Q.
> He is most likely talking about Mark and Matthew,
it's unclear whether or not he would be aware of matthew. the scholarly consensus is that he was not, and obtained the shared matthean content from a common source, Q.
> The strongest argument against the traditional attribution of Matthew is that as an eyewitness he would not have had to draw from Mark. But it supposed that Mark got much of his information from Peter (the same eyewitness source as Matthew),
it's clear that matthew is not simply drawing from a common source with mark, but that matthew is copying mark directly.
and since Matthew lived in Jerusalem, it's very reasonable to think that he was a source for Q. it speaks of the possibility of reliability all around.
matthew the person, yes, may indeed be the source for Q. this is kind of a pet theory i have; the traditional attribution is that matthew wrote a sayings gospel in aramaic, which sounds an awful lot like a) the kind of thing an actual witness would write, and b) like and original language source for Q, which is greek. the gospel of matthew may have taken on that name because it contained the source that matthew actually wrote.
i like this idea, but i don't know if there's any way to provide evidence for it.
> I have presented my evidence and seen it refuted. I'm curious now to see your evidence for the authorship and dating of the Gospels.
there isn't a clear academic picture of who, specifically, wrote the gospels. like, which individuals and what their names were. we may never know this.
mark seems to have been a reasonably educated greek speaker, who did not live in palestine. he makes several historical and geographical errors, and writes a number of latin words and phrases that together indicate a post-70 CE, foreign, latin context. mark contains a number of anti-petrine statements, and has the church move out of jerusalem at the end, so it's not likely that it actually came from peter's camp. paul reports that peter was in jerusalem following the crucifixion.
- Spiderman
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest