Bible Facts and History

[Zzyzx]

.
A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era – many others were discarded or not included
2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors
3. No original bibles exist
4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century
5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist
6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people
7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors – their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record
10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable
11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described
12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources
13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers
14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers


Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

[Shermana]

And as ThatGirl pointed out, the fourth gospel clearly states that it was written by the 'beloved disciple.'

Are you referring to the dubious "Epilogue" chapter 21 which is widely considered to be an add on?

[notachance]

.
A common tactic of Christian Apologist debaters is to proclaim that their Non-Christian opponents are ignorant of the bible and bible history. Here are a few facts that are known to many Non-Christians (and probably not known or admitted by many Christians).

The book now known as the bible

1. Is an edited collection of writings selected from many religious writings available in that era – many others were discarded or not included
2. Collecting and was done by churchmen acting under direction of Roman Emperors
3. No original bibles exist
4. The earliest bible copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from the fourth century
5. No original texts of the gospels or other early writings on which the bible is based are known to exist
6. The bible was transcribed by hand multiple times, translated, edited, revised and rewritten by unknown people
7. The identity of bible / gospel writers is unknown
8. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms assigned by editors – their identities are not known and they are not known to be apostles
9. Gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or the conversations they record
10. Sources of information by bible writers is unknown and unverifiable
11. It is not known when the gospels were written but appears to be decades or generations after the events and conversations described
12. None of the principal characters of the bible, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles can be shown to exist from civil records of the era or other non-biblical sources
13. None of the claimed miracles or supernatural stories of the bible are noted by anyone other than bible story tellers
14. The claim that Jesus came back to life after three days in the grave is not supported by anyone other than bible story tellers


Questions for debate:

Do Christians in general (and debaters in particular) appear to be unaware of this information?

Is this information made available (taught) by Christian churches and leaders to their parishioners?

Is it dishonest for members of the church hierarchy to fail to, or refuse to make this truthful and important information available to followers?

If this information was widely publicized in Christendom, would you expect that adherence to, and reverence of, the bible and church dogma would decline?

If you knew that the truth and accuracy of a source (other than the bible) was that questionable, would you base life decisions on what it said?

Heya zz. What's puzzling to me is not the superstition and absurd beliefs of those who through lack of overall education, lack of biblical knowledge, lack of training in critical thinking, and overall ignorance, fall pray to indoctrination from birth.

It's regrettable, but not surprising, that those who know so little, believe such wacky stuff.

What I cannot understand is that while the truth does set so many free, and a large plurality of people who get educated and read the Bible critically end up being former Christians, some of those who are educated, smart and knowledgeable, REMAIN superstitious.

How in the world do we account for Father George Coyne, Zz, how?

[Mithrae]

And as ThatGirl pointed out, the fourth gospel clearly states that it was written by the 'beloved disciple.'

Are you referring to the dubious "Epilogue" chapter 21 which is widely considered to be an add on?

Hi Shermana. Been without internet for a few months, but I haven't forgotten that I owe you a reply about the fourth gospel The author claims to be an eyewitness in 1:14 and 19:35 (and 1 John 1:1-3), and as you note this claim was confirmed by someone else in the final chapter, not long after his death. Additional confirmation is generally considered a good thing.

Mark’s reference to a promise by Jesus that “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power� would be a serious embarrassment forty years after the alleged fact unless it were too embedded in the popular imagination to ignore.

In Paul’s view the messianic age opened with the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the judge and the universal resurrection could not be far behind. But faced with a too well known and too specific a meme as “some who are standing here� to ignore, Mark needs an explanation. The Temple theme is an attempt to ‘reset the clock’. This is the signal opening the messianic age. Matthew and Luke continue this theme but with increasing disclaimers about the delay.

I disagree that Matthew makes an increased disclaimer about the delay; on the contrary, he emphasises Christ's imminent return more than any other gospel. In Matthew 10:23 it says he'll return before the disciples have gone through the towns of Israel, a claim found nowhere else, and in 16:28 it changes Mark's ambiguous "kingdom of God come with power" to "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This emphasis, to my mind, is exceptionally strong evidence that Matthew was written shortly after the temple's destruction - no more than 3 years later, if the author put much store by Daniel's sevens.

By contrast, a quick read of Mark 4 suggests that this author's use of 'kingdom of God' doesn't necessarily refer to eschatology, and it's always possible that Jesus truly did fear that a revolt would one day see the Romans destroying the temple. Perhaps Matthew was written in 71CE and Mark in 70 - but to be honest, I'm not convinced there's really solid evidence that Mark wasn't written even earlier.

[ThatGirlAgain]

And as ThatGirl pointed out, the fourth gospel clearly states that it was written by the 'beloved disciple.'

Are you referring to the dubious "Epilogue" chapter 21 which is widely considered to be an add on?

For the record this is what I really said.

The only Gospel that even claims to be eyewitness material is John. The end of that Gospel refers to the source having been the ‘beloved disciple’ who tradition names John but scripture leaves anonymous. But we may note that the Gospel of John differs radically in its story from the synoptic Gospels written decades earlier.

.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Mark’s reference to a promise by Jesus that “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power� would be a serious embarrassment forty years after the alleged fact unless it were too embedded in the popular imagination to ignore.

In Paul’s view the messianic age opened with the resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the judge and the universal resurrection could not be far behind. But faced with a too well known and too specific a meme as “some who are standing here� to ignore, Mark needs an explanation. The Temple theme is an attempt to ‘reset the clock’. This is the signal opening the messianic age. Matthew and Luke continue this theme but with increasing disclaimers about the delay.

I disagree that Matthew makes an increased disclaimer about the delay; on the contrary, he emphasises Christ's imminent return more than any other gospel. In Matthew 10:23 it says he'll return before the disciples have gone through the towns of Israel, a claim found nowhere else, and in 16:28 it changes Mark's ambiguous "kingdom of God come with power" to "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This emphasis, to my mind, is exceptionally strong evidence that Matthew was written shortly after the temple's destruction - no more than 3 years later, if the author put much store by Daniel's sevens.

Matthew needs to emphasize an imminent return because it has been so long since the promise was made and those who were “standing there� were gradually “tasting death�. Yet in Matthew 25 we see several parables that imply otherwise.

In the wise and foolish virgins parable, “the bridegroom tarried�. Conserve your oil because the wait will be long so “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.�

In the talents parable, “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh� and punished the one who just waited instead of getting on with the business of multiplying the talents.

In the sheep and the goats parable, the penalty for not doing what was expected is shown to be very severe. Upping the ante like that is one way of ensuring continuing faith despite delays.

The increased emphasis on an imminent return that you point out plus the hedging in Matthew 25 to not give up hope despite more delays sounds like Matthew was written more than a few years after Mark. And no, I do not put any store in Daniel’s sevens.

By contrast, a quick read of Mark 4 suggests that this author's use of 'kingdom of God' doesn't necessarily refer to eschatology, and it's always possible that Jesus truly did fear that a revolt would one day see the Romans destroying the temple. Perhaps Matthew was written in 71CE and Mark in 70 - but to be honest, I'm not convinced there's really solid evidence that Mark wasn't written even earlier.

I presume you mean Mark 9 and not 4. If you look at what Jesus said immediately before that it is very clear that Mark was referring to the eschaton.

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mark 9:1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Marks’ oblique references to the destruction of the Temple, most notably the interleaved Fig Tree / Temple story in Mark 11, would have been incomprehensible to an audience before the Temple was destroyed. A plain prophecy would have had an impact later. But nobody would connect this strange story to the destruction of the Temple later on. Mark clearly wrote after that event.

.

[ThatGirlAgain]

By contrast, a quick read of Mark 4 suggests that this author's use of 'kingdom of God' doesn't necessarily refer to eschatology.

Too late to edit so I will just reply again.

I see that you really did mean Mark 4. My mistake. Yes, we do see here and elsewhere in the Gospels this idea of the kingdom of God appearing gradually on earth. One possible interpretation that still preserves the eschatological flavor of Mark 8/9 (and many other places in the NT) is the idea that the Judge will not come until the people have returned sufficiently to righteousness to justify that. (An idea put forth by several Prophets that I am too tired to research.). Or it may be that an original historical Jesus had a completely different idea than what was attributed to him later and that idea was still embedded in oral tradition and picked up by Mark.

[Mithrae]

I disagree that Matthew makes an increased disclaimer about the delay; on the contrary, he emphasises Christ's imminent return more than any other gospel. In Matthew 10:23 it says he'll return before the disciples have gone through the towns of Israel, a claim found nowhere else, and in 16:28 it changes Mark's ambiguous "kingdom of God come with power" to "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This emphasis, to my mind, is exceptionally strong evidence that Matthew was written shortly after the temple's destruction - no more than 3 years later, if the author put much store by Daniel's sevens.

Matthew needs to emphasize an imminent return because it has been so long since the promise was made and those who were “standing there� were gradually “tasting death�. Yet in Matthew 25 we see several parables that imply otherwise. . . .

The increased emphasis on an imminent return that you point out plus the hedging in Matthew 25 to not give up hope despite more delays sounds like Matthew was written more than a few years after Mark. And no, I do not put any store in Daniel’s sevens.

I see what you're saying, and it has merit. But Mark obviously didn't begin the idea of Jesus returning soon - Paul was writing that in the early 50s, and it's even possible that Jesus himself taught it. Those parables about a long delay make just as much sense 40-odd years after Jesus' death as they do 50-odd years later. My point about Daniel is that the author of Matthew would obviously have been aware of the passage "He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering..." (Daniel 9:27). The destruction of the temple would seem a fulfillment of that verse and the sign that Jesus would return at the end of that 'seven' - hence the increase in emphasis that he'd be back soon.

After those 3-4 years any eschatological hopes sparked by the temple's destruction would be rapidly fading and, as in the case of Luke and John, the author would carefully down-play the theme of Christ's imminent return. I can't really see how you believe Matthew's increased emphasis indicates it was written significantly later.

By contrast, a quick read of Mark 4 suggests that this author's use of 'kingdom of God' doesn't necessarily refer to eschatology, and it's always possible that Jesus truly did fear that a revolt would one day see the Romans destroying the temple. Perhaps Matthew was written in 71CE and Mark in 70 - but to be honest, I'm not convinced there's really solid evidence that Mark wasn't written even earlier.

I presume you mean Mark 9 and not 4. If you look at what Jesus said immediately before that it is very clear that Mark was referring to the eschaton. . . .

Too late to edit so I will just reply again.
I see that you really did mean Mark 4. My mistake. Yes, we do see here and elsewhere in the Gospels this idea of the kingdom of God appearing gradually on earth. One possible interpretation that still preserves the eschatological flavor of Mark 8/9 (and many other places in the NT) is the idea that the Judge will not come until the people have returned sufficiently to righteousness to justify that. (An idea put forth by several Prophets that I am too tired to research.). Or it may be that an original historical Jesus had a completely different idea than what was attributed to him later and that idea was still embedded in oral tradition and picked up by Mark.

Without delving too deep into theology, my guess would be that 'kingdom of God' in Mark generally refers to the individual's submission/transformation by God, rather than the growth of the church. I'd further suggest that the false Christs, persecution and so on described in Mark 13 isn't really consistent with folk returning to righteousness enough for Christ's return. But either way, I know of only one probable exception to the pattern laid down in chapter four; in Mark 14:25, where Jesus seems to equate the kingdom of God with heaven. Did Mark use the term with general consistency? And if so, is 9:1 a second exception to the rule, or should we consider it consistent with ch4?

In 8:31ff Jesus talks about his own death, and goes on to say that his disciples must deny themselves, take up their crosses and so on. He mentions the consequence of failure to do so, when he returns in glory, and then says that they will see the kingdom of God come with power. I wouldn't say that his return is the main theme of the passage, so given that Mark established a different use for 'kingdom of God' earlier in the book, it's quite likely that 9:1 is referring to the powerful positive results which will come from the personal, self-denial aspect of this kingdom of God.

Marks’ oblique references to the destruction of the Temple, most notably the interleaved Fig Tree / Temple story in Mark 11, would have been incomprehensible to an audience before the Temple was destroyed. A plain prophecy would have had an impact later. But nobody would connect this strange story to the destruction of the Temple later on. Mark clearly wrote after that event.

By the looks of it, Matthew didn't connect the fig tree story to the temple's destruction and Luke teaches the lesson of faith in a different manner entirely. I'd never heard of it before either, if it comes to that, though you may be right now that I look at it. But it's a little shaky, considering the more obvious meaning of the story is the power of faith.

Getting a little closer to the thread topic, I'm quite open to the mainstream perspective of Mark, but on the other hand when there's early second-century testimony that Peter's interpreter wrote a gospel I'm not inclined to dismiss it out of hand. Mark was used as a main source by both Matthew and Luke (and some argue John also), which suggests that it carried some weight in the early Christian church. While Mark 13 is certainly intriguing, I'm not sure it meshes well enough with history to be considered conclusively anachronistic and we can't rule out that Jesus (or other early Christians) may well have feared or anticipated the eventual wrath of Rome against restless Judea. So from what I've learned so far I think it's by no means impossible that Mark was written before 70CE, especially if my guesses about Matthew are correct.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Mithrae,

I am thinking about all you said but have been handed a bunch of real work instead of the usual Mickey Mouse stuff. I will get back when I can.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I see what you're saying, and it has merit. But Mark obviously didn't begin the idea of Jesus returning soon - Paul was writing that in the early 50s, and it's even possible that Jesus himself taught it. Those parables about a long delay make just as much sense 40-odd years after Jesus' death as they do 50-odd years later.

.

First of all, by “significant� I meant something like 10 years as opposed to 1 to 4 years.

As discussed above, Mark’s use of the “not taste death� (Mark 9) quote (as well as the “this generation� passage Mark 13) despite the obvious delay suggests that this idea was well known and could not be ignored. Paul’s widely disseminated notion of an imminent eschaton supports that assumption. But Mark does not provide any parables or sayings that could allow for further delays. His use of the destruction of the Temple as the new starting point and the absence of any hedges seem to point to a renewal of Paul’s expectation of ‘eschaton any day now’.

As you pointed out, Matthew emphasizes the imminence of the eschaton even more than Mark. But he does have those ‘long wait’ parables. Interpreting this as a long wait from the time of Jesus does not seem tenable since Matthew 25 is all about telling Matthew’s contemporary audience how to act. Mark sees no need to talk about further delays but Matthew does.

My point about Daniel is that the author of Matthew would obviously have been aware of the passage "He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering..." (Daniel 9:27). The destruction of the temple would seem a fulfillment of that verse and the sign that Jesus would return at the end of that 'seven' - hence the increase in emphasis that he'd be back soon

After those 3-4 years any eschatological hopes sparked by the temple's destruction would be rapidly fading and, as in the case of Luke and John, the author would carefully down-play the theme of Christ's imminent return. I can't really see how you believe Matthew's increased emphasis indicates it was written significantly later.

It is clear that Mark wishes to intentionally invoke Daniel. Mark 13 contains several references to Daniel, including “the abomination that causes desolation� (Daniel 9:27). This is the same section of Daniel that talks about the “sevens�. But it is unclear whether Matthew was consciously thinking about the implications of Daniel 9 because Matthew 24 is nearly a word for word copy of Mark 13.

However we may note that Matthew adds some of his own text after copying Mark. Where Mark uses the image of a man going away and telling his servants to keep watch for him, Matthew expands on that idea in an interesting way.

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 24:45-51

The reference to the master staying away a long time ties this thematically to Matthew 25 and the other ‘delay’ parables. Why does Matthew find it necessary to add this hedge to his otherwise virtually word perfect quote of Mark?

The idea that Matthew is writing more than a very few number of years after Mark seems inherent in the text. The ten year figure I mentioned above is related to non-textual considerations, such as the revival of the Hillel Pharisees following the destruction of the Temple, their formation of rabbinic Judaism to replace the Temple-centric form, their spread to Northern Galilee where Matthew’s community is thought to be and their ideological collision with that community prompting Matthew to write his Gospel. See White for a full discussion of this theory. I am just mentioning this in passing as background to the ten year estimate. It would take us too far astray from the thread topic.

I am mostly out of free time again. I still need to address your kingdom of heaven idea and Mark as post-Temple author.

I’ll be back.

[Mithrae]

As you pointed out, Matthew emphasizes the imminence of the eschaton even more than Mark. But he does have those ‘long wait’ parables. Interpreting this as a long wait from the time of Jesus does not seem tenable since Matthew 25 is all about telling Matthew’s contemporary audience how to act. Mark sees no need to talk about further delays but Matthew does.

My point about Daniel is that the author of Matthew would obviously have been aware of the passage "He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering..." (Daniel 9:27). The destruction of the temple would seem a fulfillment of that verse and the sign that Jesus would return at the end of that 'seven' - hence the increase in emphasis that he'd be back soon

After those 3-4 years any eschatological hopes sparked by the temple's destruction would be rapidly fading and, as in the case of Luke and John, the author would carefully down-play the theme of Christ's imminent return. I can't really see how you believe Matthew's increased emphasis indicates it was written significantly later.

It is clear that Mark wishes to intentionally invoke Daniel. Mark 13 contains several references to Daniel, including “the abomination that causes desolation� (Daniel 9:27). This is the same section of Daniel that talks about the “sevens�. But it is unclear whether Matthew was consciously thinking about the implications of Daniel 9 because Matthew 24 is nearly a word for word copy of Mark 13.

Unlike Mark, Matthew specifically points out for his readers that it's "the abomination that causes desolation spoken of through the prophet Daniel." It's not something I'm overly familiar with, but as you've suggested Matthew is essentially written for a Jewish audience, showing Jesus not only as the Messiah but as a new Moses and the fulfillment of the Law; hence the comparisons with Moses in his nativity, the format of his sermon on the mount, Peter's confession of Christ, the multitude of fulfilled 'prophecies' and the temple veil rent in twain when he died. Matthew would have known, and his readers would have known (especially since he specifically highlighted it) that the abomination of desolation and an end to sacrifice and offering comes in the middle of Daniel's final seven.

You do raise an interesting point with these 'delay' parables, which I hadn't considered before, but in light of the above and Matthew's increased emphasis on the immanence of Christ's return, I simply can't see it being any later than 73CE or so. Like I say, that had already been a long delay since Christ, so it's not like my view involves ignoring or radically re-interpreting those parables. But if it was later than that, above all gospel writers Matthew's goal and audience would make him the most likely to downplay the association with Daniel and immediate expectations, if not omit bits or all of Mark 13 entirely.

As discussed above, Mark’s use of the “not taste death� (Mark 9) quote (as well as the “this generation� passage Mark 13) despite the obvious delay suggests that this idea was well known and could not be ignored. Paul’s widely disseminated notion of an imminent eschaton supports that assumption. But Mark does not provide any parables or sayings that could allow for further delays. His use of the destruction of the Temple as the new starting point and the absence of any hedges seem to point to a renewal of Paul’s expectation of ‘eschaton any day now’.

Well like I say, I'm not particularly adverse to the possibility that Mark was written after the start of the war or after the temple's destruction. I just question whether Jesus' prediction of the temple's destruction is really a water-tight proof of anachronism. There would have been revolts, uprisings and rebellious murmurings around as Jesus was growing up and teaching. If the gospels are to be believed, he himself was considered by some folk as a good candidate for a king who'd overthrow the Romans. Every time he went to Jerusalem for Passover or the like, there would have been more Roman soldiers around wary for any signs of riot or rebellion. Perhaps he (or his disciples, once they'd established their theology regarding his purpose and death) really did fear or even openly predict that the temple would one day be destroyed - perhaps such a view could even reinforce their overall theology.

Mark 13 is essentially just a cobbled-together series of OT prophecies and dire warnings. If it was based simply on that fear or prediction of the temple's destruction - and, as you note, the general anticipation that Christ would return before too long - it's not that remarkable at all. If you're writing about the temple's destruction you couldn't not mention the abomination of desolation, unless of course (like Luke) you're writing too long after the event. And as I say, given Mark's previously established meaning for 'kingdom of God,' I'm not sure 9:1 counts as any indication it was written c70CE either, though I look forward to your further comments on that

Edit: Overlooked this. How long should it be before we would expect Mark not to use a phrase like 'this generation'? If this is the gospel which Papias referred to, it may have been written c64-65CE, which is getting late - but surely not too late. Or perhaps even 66-67CE (written or revised?), as word of the growing Jewish revolt reached the author's ears.