CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

[PILGRIMSHOST]

Hi all, Im looking for a specific piece of evidence at this time and would like if anybody could point me in the right direction.

I have been involved in the christian evangelical field for some years now and have gained much insight into the subject.

In the last few days I have desided to look for historical evidence that PETER (from the new testament) was actually crucified. Im seeking this evidence to support the claim ''they didnt die for a lie!''

Thank you and I look forward to your replies

[Zzyzx]

It's very obvious to anyone not completely biased that Jesus is a myth

If you assume miracles are impossible, the stories of Jesus are clearly bogus. On the other hand, the stories of Jesus provide us with clear testimony that miracles are not bogus.

You don't believe in miracles because you've decided to disbelieve. Simple as that. You've picked your assumptions and others have picked theirs. Don't bore us with protests of objectivity.

Let's assume, for the moment, that miracles are possible. Being rational people, we realize that some "miracles" have been faked by people for various reasons.

How can we tell for certain which miracles are real and which are fake?

How can we tell for certain which miracles reported in all ancient texts are real and which are fake?

[Zzyzx]

Duplicate

[TruthSeeker1]

Do the stories of Mohammed from the Koran provide us with clear testimony of miracles? I'm not aware of the Koran crediting Mohammed with any "miracles." Islam's biggest hurdle is lack of multiple and early attestation.

Do you believe Mohammed flew to the moon on a white horse? It says so in the Koran, which is the same evidence we have for Jesus walking on water. Are both true in your mind?

"TruthSeeker1"]Is there any evidence besides the written words of anonymous writers from 2000 years ago that attest to actual miracles taking place?"Besides" ? Translation: other than the evidence we DO have, do we have any OTHER evidence? How many times must an ancient event be attested to in order to be considered probable in your opinion? What methodology do you employ?

If not, then I really don't think you can call testimony from anonymous writers with no mention of sources as "clear" testimony of actual miracles. Well that's an opinion. Maybe they didn't mention "sources" because they received their information directly from eyewitnesses as Luke tells in his first chapter. Or they were eyewitnesses themselves such as Matthew and John. Paul was apparently an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus. Do you think his work is "anonymous" too?

Incidentally, what is the methodology you use to arrive at the conclusion they are anonymous? I've seen this accusation before on this forum many times. I have yet to see anyone (though I admit I may have missed it) provide their methodology. I'd like to take that methodology and apply it to other ancient works. Let's see if ancient works we rarely question, as far as authorship, are rendered anonymous as well. I think we'll find the Gospels and remaining NT are generally speaking no more "anonymous" than any other work from antiquity.

Here are just a few reasons why an intellectually honest person cannot say the authors of the Gospels can be known:

*The authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves, no one puts their name on them. Would would an actual eyewitness to the events not want to put their name on it?

*No works in the New Testament corroborate the authorships of the other works, example: The author of "John" doesn't Identify the author of "Matthew", the author of "Matthew" despite having 90% of "Mark's" Gospel doesn't give credit to an eyewitness named "Mark" for this material

*We don't know the sources of most of the information contained in the Gospels, therefore a person cannot check with the sources to see how the writers might have ascertained their information. If a Gospel writer saw something with his own eyes then he should have said as much.

*We don't have ANY other writings from the writers of the Gospel's to compare with each other to corroborate their authorship. For example, lets say we had one Harry Potter book with J.K. Rowlings name on it, and found another Harry Potter book without an authors name, we could compare the two and make a safe assumption that J.K. Rowling wrote the other Harry Potter book. We do not have any other writings from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to compare with the Gospel accounts.

*The Gospels do not read like first hand accounts, and in the case of "Luke" he even admits that he is not an eyewitness. Take "Matthew" for example, he never puts a personal touch on his writing even when it comes to the calling of Matthew by Jesus. Do you not find it odd that an eyewitness and a disciple of God would borrow heavily from "Mark's" description of his own calling by Jesus? Why would an eyewitness do this? Yet another reason to question the credibility of "Matthew" being an eyewitness account.

*Many of the events in the Gospels cannot be corroborated with outside historical sources. Take the account of dead people walking into Jerusalem in "Matthew", did anyone else write this down? How about the killing of the infants by Herod, any other historians document this? Simply put, the accounts do not seem historically accurate which again brings into question the credibility of the authors.

*No other historians from the first century document the Gospels as being first hand accounts. As you'll see from my next point the only people making the claim the Gospels are first hand account are Church leaders almost a century later. In the absence of any objective evidence and coupled with the clear motivation for Church leaders to want the Gospels to be first hand accounts it is dubious to conclude they are.

*It takes upwards of 100 years before any names are attributed to the Gospels, and have you looked into the methodology used by Ireneous to base his conclusions on? You should check it out, but the point is the length of time, and the reasons for putting names on the anonymously written Gospels are not very credible.

So, as far as methodology goes in regards to authorship of any work I would look at all the points I list above and examine how credible a given work looks. I don't give any brownie points to a document being old. Just because the Gospels were written 2000 years ago does not mean I cannot use modern methods of credibility to determine who the author's might be. Just because other works in history might lack some of the same elements of credibility that the Gospels do, does NOT by default make the Gospels credible . Your logic is similar to someone saying, "since everyone flunked the test those who got 10% of the questions correct did a good job because everyone did bad." In addition, if you do reseach into the writings of historians in this time period you find that many documented their sources, identified themselves, and were corroberated by other historians---all things lacking in the Gospels.

Since the authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves they were truly written anonymously. This is something you can't argue, it is a fact. You seem to believe that individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote these works. I've provided my methodology and reasons as to why I believe we cannot know who wrote these books. In return, please provide your evidence and methodology as to why you believe the Gospel authors can be known.

[Goose]

How can we tell for certain which miracles reported in all ancient texts are real and which are fake?

The truth? We can't tell for "certain." History is very difficult to prove with absolute certainty. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is virtually impossible to prove with absolute certainty anything in history, especially ancient history. History deals with probabilities. Personally I don't doubt a "miracle" on the sole basis it isn't found in the Bible. There are a number of criteria such as multiple or early attestation to name two that I would consider. But it is usually a cumulative case of evidence. Whether the case meets a reasonable burden of proof is somewhat subjective. It depends heavily upon one's presuppostions toward the supernatural.

[Zzyzx]

.

How can we tell for certain which miracles reported in all ancient texts are real and which are fake?

The truth? We can't tell for "certain." History is very difficult to prove with absolute certainty.

Agreed, it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty historical occurrences. The best that can be done is to gather information from as many different, independent sources as possible and attempt to understand what happened.

If we cannot be certain, perhaps we can reasonably draw conclusions based upon what we can learn from the writings of many people with differing perspectives and motivations (to avoid accepting only biased points of view). Do you agree?

In fact, I would go as far as saying it is virtually impossible to prove with absolute certainty anything in history, especially ancient history. History deals with probabilities.

Agreed. History deals with probabilities more than with certainties.

Some events are more probable than others. If a report indicates that an area had rains or a drought, that is not likely to be questioned. If a report claims that two feet of snow fell in summer 500 years ago at the equator at sea level, that report is likely to be disbelieved unless strong evidence is provided to verify that such a thing actually happened.

Personally I don't doubt a "miracle" on the sole basis it isn't found in the Bible.

Do you automatically accept a “miracle” if it IS found in the bible? Are all biblical miracles factual? Did they actually occur as reported?

Some claimed “miracles” have been exposed as frauds. How can one tell a fraudulent claim from a real claim of miraculous occurrences?

There are a number of criteria such as multiple or early attestation to name two that I would consider. But it is usually a cumulative case of evidence.

Does evidence from a single book provide ‘cumulative case of evidence”?

Whether the case meets a reasonable burden of proof is somewhat subjective.

I agree. Would you say that a person should be consistent with their subjective evaluation of what constitutes reasonable burden of proof?

If, for instance, a person accepts a given miracle as being real based upon the writings of several ancient people whose motivations cannot be known with any degree of confidence – should they also, being consistent, accept a different miracle based upon the writings of several ancient people whose motivations cannot be known with any degree of confidence?

Should the subjective evaluation of proof also be consistent through time? If a given miracle is accepted on the basis of reports by several devout people long ago, should a modern miracle reported by a similar number of devout people be accepted as well?

Should acceptance be based upon faith – or can miracles occur to or concerning non-religious people, or people of differing religious beliefs?

If people who worship different gods report “miracles” can those reports be true?

It depends heavily upon one's presuppostions toward the supernatural.

I would say it somewhat differently. People believe in miracles because they want to believe in miracles.

[Goose]

Do you believe Mohammed flew to the moon on a white horse? It says so in the Koran, which is the same evidence we have for Jesus walking on water. Are both true in your mind?

No the evidence is not the same. And no I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to warrant belief that Mohamed physically flew to the moon. You are referring to the Muslim tradition Isra and Mi'raj. It is mentioned briefly with out detail in the Quran. It is difficult to ascertain if the Quran is speaking of a physical journey or a vision. According to the author of Mohammed's first biography it was a vision and not a physical journey. The earliest detailed attestation is found in the Hadith written approximately 150 or more years after Mohammed's death. So we have one early and brief source the Quran, authored by Mohamed, and attestation that comes too late to even possibly be a witness, that claims it to be a vision. Given the context of the Quran being a revelation to Mohammed, and only Mohammed, it seems more fitting to think of this as a vision of sorts.

Jesus walking on water is attested in three Gospels Matthew, Mark and John all written during the lifetimes of possible witnesses to the events. The event enjoys multiple early attestation (we won't even assume here this is based upon eyewitness testimony). Given the context of Jesus' miracle working ministry, His claims to divinity, and resurrection, I don't think it out of the realm of probability that he did or could walk on water.

Do you believe Caesar Crossed the Rubicon? If so, why?

Is there any evidence besides the written words of anonymous writers from 2000 years ago that attest to actual miracles taking place?

"Besides" ? Translation: other than the evidence we DO have, do we have any OTHER evidence? How many times must an ancient event be attested to in order to be considered probable in your opinion? What methodology do you employ?

Here are just a few reasons why an intellectually honest person cannot say the authors of the Gospels can be known:

That's an ad hominem. Basically you are saying if I don't agree with you I'm dishonest. Stick to the arguments, it will serve you better.

OK, let's have a look at your methodology. Lot's of problems with them amidst your personal expectations of what you think should have been said or done, but little in the way of objective criteria. Plenty of reasons why YOU think the Gospels are untrustworthy, which is entirely another subject to authorship. I'll not address those now. I'll sift through your post for authorship criteria.

*[1]The authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves, no one puts their name on them. [2]Would an actual eyewitness to the events not want to put their name on it?

This seems to be the biggest complaint and most important criteria for you and many others. And technically it is true. However...

Julius Caesar does not identify himself in his Commentaries on the Civil or Gallic Wars either. How do we know Caesar was the author? Tacitus does not identify himself in the Annals either. How do we know he was the author? The authorships of these two secular works are rarely questioned. In fact, there are many ancient works in which the author does not expressly identify himself. So, with that criteria you've rendered a big part of ancient history "anonymous."
2. Even if they did put a name on it. How would you know it was actually written by them?

*No works in the New Testament corroborate the authorships of the other works, example: The author of "John" doesn't Identify the author of "Matthew", the author of "Matthew" despite having 90% of "Mark's" Gospel doesn't give credit to an eyewitness named "Mark" for this material

This is irrelevant to authorship. In your mind it might reduce the authors credibility, but this has absolutely nothing to do with determining authorship. It could also be seen as good evidence that the Gospels were written independently of one another.

Psst...Mark wasn't an eyewitness, no Christian claims that. Mark's account is based on the preaching/teaching of the eyewitness Peter.

*We don't know the sources of most of the information contained in the Gospels, therefore a person cannot check with the sources to see how the writers might have ascertained their information. If a Gospel writer saw something with his own eyes then he should have said as much.

Well how would we then check the sources of the sources? If the sources were eyewitnesses to the events, how do we check those sources? You've created an unrealistic and false expectation. We don't know all the sources of Caesar's Civil/Gallic War commentaries either. Could that be because he was an eyewitness? You are also projecting your own false expectations with "should have." That's not an objective criteria.

*[1]We don't have ANY other writings from the writers of the Gospel's to compare with each other to corroborate their authorship. For example, lets say we had one Harry Potter book with J.K. Rowlings name on it, and found another Harry Potter book without an authors name, we could compare the two and make a safe assumption that J.K. Rowling wrote the other Harry Potter book. We do not have any other writings from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to compare with the Gospel accounts.

1. Wrong. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John to compare to the Gospel of John. We have Acts to compare to Luke. It's generally accepted that the same author wrote 1, 2, and 3 John also wrote the Gospel of John. It is also generally accepted the same person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts.

We also have something just as good if not better. We have early manuscript evidence with titles. Perhaps you know of early extant manuscripts of one of the Gospels with the title Gospel of Judas or no name at all. That would help your case. The problem for you is all the early manuscript evidence we have for the Gospels comes with titles attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John. There are NO other contenders. There was no confusion in the early Church as to who authored which Gospel as we now have them. So your theory depends upon church fathers arbitrarily assigning random titles to works in the hopes they got it right somewhere between their initial composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. Yet, there is little to no evidence at all to support that position. How do we know other secular works aren't victim to the same fate?

*[1]The Gospels do not read like first hand accounts, [2]and in the case of "Luke" he even admits that he is not an eyewitness. [3]Take "Matthew" for example, he never puts a personal touch on his writing even when it comes to the calling of Matthew by Jesus. [4]Do you not find it odd that an eyewitness and a disciple of God would borrow heavily from "Mark's" description of his own calling by Jesus? [5]Why would an eyewitness do this? [6]Yet another reason to question the credibility of "Matthew" being an eyewitness account.

These aren't really objective criteria for determining authorship. They are simply your personal observations. But never the less...

1. I could say the same about Caesar's Gallic War Commentary. That's merely an observation and irrelevant for determining authorship. I think you mean they don't read like 21st century first hand eyewitness accounts.
2. Yup, I already said that in my last post. He says he gets his info from eyewitnesses (Luke ch. 1)
3. So what? Many writers were impersonal. Caesar writes in the third person in Gallic and Civil Wars and his style is VERY impersonal. Josephus also wrote in the third person in Wars of the Jews. So did Xenophon in Anabasis and so on.
4. Actually, if you read the texts, it looks like Matthew is clarifying Mark's account with pertinent and additional information that did seem to personalize the account for Matthew. Or, Mark was giving the Reader's Digest version of Matthew's account. Or, oral tradition accounts for the similarity yet subtle differences. Take your pick. It works either way. Borrowing from Mark isn't necessarily the best or only answer.
5. I don't know, I can't read minds, especially dead ones. Maybe Mark had it right and Matthew was confirming it. Maybe oral tradition accounts for the similarity and no one was borrowing as they were written independently of one another. There are many possible solutions to your question.
6. Irrelevant to determining authorship.

*[1]Many of the events in the Gospels cannot be corroborated with outside historical sources. Take the account of dead people walking into Jerusalem in "Matthew", did anyone else write this down? How about the killing of the infants by Herod, any other historians document this? [2]Simply put, the accounts do not seem historically accurate which again brings into question the credibility of the authors.

1. And many can and have been corroborated from the NT. The minor details you have cited in Matthew are fringe secondary accounts that have little to do with the core of Christianity yet alone determining authorship of a work. You've also flunked much of ancient history with this criteria. If we could only trust a source that has corroboration with "outside historical sources" we would have a serious problem. Historian Paul Maiernotes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source..." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.
2. "Seem" historically accurate? Is that a criteria or just your opinion? They "seem" accurate to me, does that mean they are?

*[1]No other historians from the first century document the Gospels as being first hand accounts. [2]As you'll see from my next point the only people making the claim the Gospels are first hand account are Church leaders almost a century later. [3] In the absence of any objective evidence and coupled with the clear motivation for Church leaders to want the Gospels to be first hand accounts it is dubious to conclude they are.

1. There are no other historians from the first century BC that document Caesar's Civil War or Gallic War commentaries as being first hand accounts either. If you require as a criteria a contemporary to document an account as being first hand to confirm that it is in fact first hand, you've just annihilated the vast majority of ancient history with that one.
2. The first source that I'm aware of that directly attributes authorship of the Civil and Gallic War Commentaries to Julius Caesar is the Roman historian and biased source Suetonius (and Suetonius is quoting from Cicero's Brutus, in which Cicero only mentions Caesar's memoirs), writing in Lives of the Twelve Caesars 56, written about 170 years after Caesars death. It's the same with Tacitus and his Annals. The first external attestation to his authorship is one hundred years later by Tertullian. Oh, did you know that Celsus' De medicina, written around 30-50AD is attested by an external source no earlier than 990AD? Do you question the authorship of these works as well?
3. No objective evidence? The church fathers may not be "objective" in the strictest sense I'll concede that. But it is evidence that you need to deal with, not brush aside. There's also no "objective" evidence for Caesar's authorship either. It's the same for Tacitus as well.

*[1]It takes upwards of 100 years before any names are attributed to the Gospels, [2]and have you looked into the methodology used by Ireneous to base his conclusions on? [3]You should check it out, but the point is the length of time, [4]and the reasons for putting names on the anonymously written Gospels are not very credible.

1. Well if that's true, the Gospels are doing as well as Tacitus then, and better than Julius.
2. Feel free to elaborate.
3. So far, the Gospels are doing comparatively well me thinks.
4. How do you know a name wasn't just attached to the Annals or Gallic/Civil War commentaries or any other ancient work? The earliest extant manuscript evidence for most secular works are usually hundreds of years after the work was written. How do we know someone with an axe to grind didn't just slap a title on them too? Isn't that what you accuse the church fathers of doing?

So, as far as methodology goes in regards to authorship of any work I would look at all the points I list above and examine how credible a given work looks.

Your methodology just rendered some very important historical works for which authorship is rarely questioned as officially "anonymous." Do you still think it's a good methodology? BTW, how credible a book "looks" is irrelevant to determining authorship.

I don't give any brownie points to a document being old. Just because the Gospels were written 2000 years ago does not mean I cannot use modern methods of credibility to determine who the author's might be.

That is called an anachronism. It's a very common fallacy among critics of the Bible.

Just because other works in history might lack some of the same elements of credibility that the Gospels do, does NOT by default make the Gospels credible.

Again, you're wanting to confuse credibility with authorship. Credibility is another subject.

Your logic is similar to someone saying, "since everyone flunked the test those who got 10% of the questions correct did a good job because everyone did bad."

No. My logic is simple. Let's use a standard methodology that isn't pre-constructed with the sole intention of rendering the Gospels "anonymous." Let's use the same methodology we use for secular works. If the Gospels are rendered hopelessly anonymous with that same methodology, fair enough (it actually doesn't make a big difference historically speaking anyway). Why look at the Gospels in a vacuum? Your logic says, "Hey, everybody did equally bad but instead of bell curving the score I'm going to only fail Joe and pass everyone else. I don't like Joe or agree with some of his answers and he should have done better anyway."

In addition, if you do reseach into the writings of historians in this time period you find that many documented their sources, identified themselves, and were corroberated by other historians---all things lacking in the Gospels.

You are parroting Richard Carrier's strawman. I'm not claiming the Gospels are histories, nor is main stream Christianity, in the strictest sense of the word. You and Richard are. They are more of a biography genre. So we shouldn't expect them to read like a work by Josephus or Tacitus. Another false expectation on your part. As well as a categorical fallacy.

Since the authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves they were truly written anonymously. This is something you can't argue, it is a fact.

If that were the sole criteria, then yes they would be technically "anonymous." Just like most other ancient works such as Caesar's and Tacitus'. They don't identify themselves either. This is something you can't argue either, it is a fact. Oh dear...

You seem to believe that individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote these works. I've provided my methodology and reasons as to why I believe we cannot know who wrote these books. In return, please provide your evidence and methodology as to why you believe the Gospel authors can be known.

I didn't claim we knew the authors so I don't feel any special obligation to argue that at present. I'm calling you out on your assertion the Gospels are "anonymous." But, to be a good sport my criteria is simple. Internal and external evidence combined with extant manuscript evidence. It's the same methodology used to determine authorship for any ancient work. For the sake of time let's quickly look at Matthew and Mark for a moment, the first two books.

Some external evidence that Mark authored his Gospel is from Papias written around 110-120AD as quoted by Eusebius:

"Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them."

Iraneus (ca. 180AD) said,

" ...after their death[Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."

Internal evidence seems to confirm that Mark's account was generally speaking based upon Peter's teaching. As well, Peter is centre stage among the disciples throughout Mark as we should expect from Mark. Peter is first to be mentioned and described as being close to Jesus. Peter is mentioned more times in Mark than in Matthew or Luke.

Also, Mark is an unlikely candidate for simply attaching a name to a Gospel if he really did not write it. He is not an eyewitness, he is depicted as young and at odds with Paul. He even abandons Paul and does not finish his work(Acts 15). He was basically a nobody. Pseudonymous works would presumably be attributed to a name with credibility such as one of the disciples or apostles. If Church fathers were just "picking" names out of hat, they goofed on that one.

External evidence that Matthew authored a gospel:

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

(Origen ca. 200AD as Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 6:25).

"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

- Papias (ca. 110-120AD as quoted by Eusebius EC, 6)

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

- Irenaeus (ca. 180AD)

Internal evidence can be found in Matthews subtle nuances that we would expect from a tax collector such as technical uses of monetary terms in Matthew 22:15-22 as compared to Mark or Luke. Increased awareness of monetary amounts 18:21-35, 25:14-30.

Matthew differentiates his account of being called by Jesus from Mark in the use of "Matthew" as opposed to the use of "Levi" in Mark and Luke. Matthew also uses "the House" instead of "his house" found in Mark and Luke in the same account describing his calling by Jesus.

Matthew also seems very focused on relating to Jews by using OT typologies. This would seem to fit the description of him being a tax collector (which would presumably require some education)in the Jewish community and constructing a Gospel for Jews.

N.T Wright wrote of Scholar Martin Hengel,

"Until recently, most scholars tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated anonymously and that the present titles were first attached to them about A.D. 125. There is little evidence to support this date as the decisive turning point; it is little more than an educated guess, based only on the presupposition that the Gospels were originally entirely anonymous and on the fact that by about 140, and perhaps earlier, the traditional attributions were widely known, without significant variation. Now, however, this consensus has been vigorously challenged by Martin Hengel. Hengel examines the practice of book distribution in the ancient world, where titles were necessary to identify a work to which any reference was made. In this context he studies the manner in which second-century authors refer to the Gospels, calling to mind, among other things, Tertullian's criticism of Marcion for publishing his own gospel (a highly truncated version of Luke) without the author's name. Tertullian contends that "a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect ... which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author." Hengel argues that as soon as two or more gospels were publicly read in any one church--a phenomenon that certainly occurred, he thinks, not later than A.D. 100--it would have been necessary to distinguish between them by some such device as a title. The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, he argues, that the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions (as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels). Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous."

The scholar D.A. Carson hits the nail on the head here regarding authorship for John,

"The fact remains that, despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front-rank scholars in this century [he cites Zahn, Westcott, Morris, Bruce, Michaels, Robinson, Ellis], and my many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view. As we shall see, much of their argumentation turns on their reading of the internal evidence. It also requires their virtual dismissal of the external evidence. This is particularly regrettable. Most scholars of antiquity, were they assessing the authorship of some other document, could not so easily set aside evidence as plentiful, consistent and plainly tied to the source as is the external evidence that supports Johannine authorship. The majority of contemporary biblical scholars do not rest nearly as much weight on external evidence as do their colleagues in classical scholarship."

There is ample internal and external evidence for these two books and others. They are certainly no worse off than other ancient works. As I said. The Gospels are just as "anonymous" as any other generally accepted work from antiquity. You're assertion that the Gospels are "anonymous" is unfounded.

[Goose]

How can we tell for certain which miracles reported in all ancient texts are real and which are fake?

The truth? We can't tell for "certain." History is very difficult to prove with absolute certainty.

Agreed, it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty historical occurrences. The best that can be done is to gather information from as many different, independent sources as possible and attempt to understand what happened.

If we cannot be certain, perhaps we can reasonably draw conclusions based upon what we can learn from the writings of many people with differing perspectives and motivations (to avoid accepting only biased points of view). Do you agree?

From a historical point of view, yes, I agree.

In fact, I would go as far as saying it is virtually impossible to prove with absolute certainty anything in history, especially ancient history. History deals with probabilities.

Agreed. History deals with probabilities more than with certainties.

Some events are more probable than others. If a report indicates that an area had rains or a drought, that is not likely to be questioned. If a report claims that two feet of snow fell in summer 500 years ago at the equator at sea level, that report is likely to be disbelieved unless strong evidence is provided to verify that such a thing actually happened.

In principle this makes sense. But then, we are into the subjective territory of trying to determine what constitutes "strong evidence." We could accept the same level of evidence as we would for other weather anomalies from 500 years ago, that would be fair. If we allow that weather anomalies can possibly happen we would not be justified in rejecting evidence to support your example on the sole basis that we don't think it could have happened or the evidence came from a particular source that we think is biased, agreed?

Personally I don't doubt a "miracle" on the sole basis it isn't found in the Bible.

Do you automatically accept a “miracle” if it IS found in the bible? Are all biblical miracles factual? Did they actually occur as reported?

I don't have any problem what-so-ever with applying the same methodology to reported miracles in the Bible as we would to any other historical event that we generally take for granted. If it renders that reported miracle as unlikely, so be it. You're going down the inerrancy and inspired rabbit trail. It's wasted on me. I'm not assuming those things in historical enquiry (though I think we can arrive at those conclusions soundly).

I'll return the question. Do you automatically reject a miracle (or even a non supernatural claim) on the sole basis it IS in the Bible or any religious text?

Some claimed “miracles” have been exposed as frauds. How can one tell a fraudulent claim from a real claim of miraculous occurrences?

There are a number of criteria such as multiple or early attestation to name two that I would consider. But it is usually a cumulative case of evidence.

Does evidence from a single book provide ‘cumulative case of evidence”?

You tell me. Why would that matter if it's just a collection of ancient writings? Whether the title is the Bible or Norton Anthology of English Literature. BTW, the case for the resurrection of Christ as an example doesn't rely only on evidence from a single book, i.e. the Bible.

Whether the case meets a reasonable burden of proof is somewhat subjective.

I agree. Would you say that a person should be consistent with their subjective evaluation of what constitutes reasonable burden of proof?

Sure. Consistency is a good thing.

If, for instance, a person accepts a given miracle as being real based upon the writings of several ancient people whose motivations cannot be known with any degree of confidence – should they also, being consistent, accept a different miracle based upon the writings of several ancient people whose motivations cannot be known with any degree of confidence?

Like I said, I'm more than happy to apply the same methodology to let's say Islam that I would apply to Christianity. You see Zzyzx, I'm not opposed to the supernatural just because it isn't in the Bible.

Should the subjective evaluation of proof also be consistent through time?

Sure. I don't have any problems with an individual's subjective conclusions drawn from the evidence and arguments. To each his own I say. I do however, have a big problem with biased and unfair treatment of the evidence.

If a given miracle is accepted on the basis of reports by several devout people long ago, should a modern miracle reported by a similar number of devout people be accepted as well?

Like I said, we can apply the same methodology to any claim, it isn't a problem for me.

Should acceptance be based upon faith...

Faith is required to accept many things. Christianity is a faith derived from and based upon evidence. Even the disciples wanted evidence.

... – or can miracles occur to or concerning non-religious people, or people of differing religious beliefs?

Why not? Paul was a devout Jew and persecutor of the early Christian Church. He was transformed by an experience with what he describes as the risen Jesus.

If people who worship different gods report “miracles” can those reports be true?

Maybe. We'd have to look at the evidence.

The supernatural can occur outside of God's direct influence and still be compatible with Christian belief.

It depends heavily upon one's presuppositions toward the supernatural.

I would say it somewhat differently. People believe in miracles because they want to believe in miracles.

I would say many people believe in miracles because they have personally experienced what they believe to be a miracle or feel the evidence is sufficient to believe in miracles. Some believe 'cuz da prechar man dun tol' 'em so. Still others are sceptical but at least investigate with an open mind.

You've aked me plenty of questions. Now it's my turn, OK?

I only have one.

If the evidence for a supernatural claim was as good or possibly even better, from an ancient historical standard, as it is for any other major event we generally accept as a fact with out question, can you think of a rational reason to reject the claim?

[AB]

Meanwhile, applying this same questioning you doubt the existence of Darius king of Persia? Your right. There was no king of Persia.. named Darius..

What a disingenuous knee-jerk reply? As though the king of Persia was alleged to be a cosmic fatherless jew whose followers telepathically call him master... please.

The above quoted text is guilty of the double standard fallacy. Christians want

No, this point is incorrect. Try again.

[TruthSeeker1]

Do you believe Caesar Crossed the Rubicon? If so, why?

How could Caesar have been the leader of Rome if he didn't cross the Rubicon? Since we have coins with Caesar on them along with multiple historians accounting for Caesar leading Rome we can safely assume an account of him crossing the Rubicon is true. Unfortunately for your arguments there is NOTHING like this type of evidence to substantiate the Gospels.

OK, let's have a look at your methodology. Lot's of problems with them amidst your personal expectations of what you think should have been said or done, but little in the way of objective criteria. Plenty of reasons why YOU think the Gospels are untrustworthy, which is entirely another subject to authorship. I'll not address those now. I'll sift through your post for authorship criteria.

OK, let's have a look at your methodology. Lot's of problems with them amidst your personal expectations of what YOU think should be said or done, but little in the way of objective criteria. Plenty of reasons why YOU think the Gospels are trustworthy, which is entirely another subject to authorship. I can say the same things to you as you did to me above and in both cases we don't advance our argument.

Julius Caesar does not identify himself in his Commentaries on the Civil or Gallic Wars either. How do we know Caesar was the author? Tacitus does not identify himself in the Annals either. How do we know he was the author? The authorships of these two secular works are rarely questioned. In fact, there are many ancient works in which the author does not expressly identify himself. So, with that criteria you've rendered a big part of ancient history "anonymous."

2. Even if they did put a name on it. How would you know it was actually written by them?

I'm not talking about writings by Julius Caesar, why do you bring him up here and all over your post? You are trying to borrow credibility from other sources and carry it over to the Gospels. The credibility of the evidence for the Gospel names is either substantial or not, and this has NOTHING to do with any writings by Julius Caesar. You are right to bring up the notion that even if an author puts a name on it doesn't mean that person actually wrote it. Does this mean we should trust the supposed authorship of the Gospels more? I fail to see the logic.

This is irrelevant to authorship. In your mind it might reduce the authors credibility, but this has absolutely nothing to do with determining authorship. It could also be seen as good evidence that the Gospels were written independently of one another.

So you are saying that if the author of 1st and 2nd Peter had mentioned that his companion Mark penned another book (Peter was written after Mark) that this wouldn't help confirm the authorship of Mark? Strange position to take.

Psst...Mark wasn't an eyewitness, no Christian claims that. Mark's account is based on the preaching/teaching of the eyewitness Peter.

Can you cite a verse in Mark or any other part of the Bible that confirms that the book of "Mark" was written by someone named Mark who was a companion of Peter? Didn't think so

Well how would we then check the sources of the sources? If the sources were eyewitnesses to the events, how do we check those sources? You've created an unrealistic and false expectation. We don't know all the sources of Caesar's Civil/Gallic War commentaries either. Could that be because he was an eyewitness? You are also projecting your own false expectations with "should have." That's not an objective criteria.

Bringing up Caesar yet again.....My "false" expectations are simply different items that would lend credibility to the authorship of the Gospels. I don't demand that a work passes all my points before being credible, yet the Gospels don't pass any of my tests. The difference between yourself and me is I actually have some expectations in regards to credibility, and you do not seem to have any.

1. Wrong. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John to compare to the Gospel of John. We have Acts to compare to Luke. It's generally accepted that the same author wrote 1, 2, and 3 John also wrote the Gospel of John. It is also generally accepted the same person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts.

What verses from the works of John or Luke, or Acts point to someone named John and Luke penning these books? Do any other books in the Bible confirm or lead us to believe someone named John or Luke wrote these books? Do you not have any expectations of internal evidence or do you simply trust fully what Church fathers say decades and centuries later?

We also have something just as good if not better. We have early manuscript evidence with titles. Perhaps you know of early extant manuscripts of one of the Gospels with the title Gospel of Judas or no name at all. That would help your case. The problem for you is all the early manuscript evidence we have for the Gospels comes with titles attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John. There are NO other contenders. There was no confusion in the early Church as to who authored which Gospel as we now have them. So your theory depends upon church fathers arbitrarily assigning random titles to works in the hopes they got it right somewhere between their initial composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. Yet, there is little to no evidence at all to support that position. How do we know other secular works aren't victim to the same fate?

Actually your point helps to show the lack of credibility with the Gospels. We only have manuscripts with titles on them because the remaining pieces we have from the Gospels are so far removed from the originals. We don't have copies of the originals, we don't have copies of copies of the originals, we don't even have copies, of copies, of copies. The point remains the original works did not have any authors names attached to them.

These aren't really objective criteria for determining authorship. They are simply your personal observations. But never the less...

Really? Objectively speaking it wouldn't lend more credibility for something being an eyewitness account if it is written in the first person? If "Matthew" was written in the first person do you think it would make it LESS likely that it was penned by an eyewitness? Strange....

1. I could say the same about Caesar's Gallic War Commentary. That's merely an observation and irrelevant for determining authorship. I think you mean they don't read like 21st century first hand eyewitness accounts.

You are rely too much on Caesar, but again the Gospels need to show credibility on their own, you can't simply rely on what people think of writings by Caesar to some how say we should trust the authorship of the Gospels. Caesar wrote more than one thing, his writing style can surely be observed in some of his writings and compared to others. Would you care to site any other writings by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that we can compare to the Gospel accounts? That's right, we don't have any!

4. Actually, if you read the texts, it looks like Matthew is clarifying Mark's account with pertinent and additional information that did seem to personalize the account for Matthew. Or, Mark was giving the Reader's Digest version of Matthew's account. Or, oral tradition accounts for the similarity yet subtle differences. Take your pick. It works either way. Borrowing from Mark isn't necessarily the best or only answer.

Your methodology puts out various "possibilities" and concludes that since it is possible for it to be one of these things it somehow gives credibility to your position. For myself, I look for probability, not just possibility, as I can come up with hundreds of possibilities for writers of the Gospels aside from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, that wouldn't advance my argument, and your similar technique fails to advance yours.

5. I don't know, I can't read minds, especially dead ones. Maybe Mark had it right and Matthew was confirming it. Maybe oral tradition accounts for the similarity and no one was borrowing as they were written independently of one another. There are many possible solutions to your question.

Yet again you simply throw out possibilities without backing them up with evidence. Sure, your conclusions are possible, but please use the text to show why your ideas are probable. Absent of this and your argument fails to be convincing.

2. "Seem" historically accurate? Is that a criteria or just your opinion? They "seem" accurate to me, does that mean they are?

You mean like your statements from above:

4. Actually, if you read the texts, it looks like Matthew is clarifying Mark's account with pertinent and additional information that did seem to personalize the account for Matthew. Or, Mark was giving the Reader's Digest version of Matthew's account.

I use words like "seem" because we are both talking about possibilies as neither of us can be certain of our conclusions as we are talking about documents written 2000 years ago and for which we have no original copies and these works have been translated at least 3 times from their original language. Our viewpoints are both based solely on our opinions and it is a matter of who's opinion is more probable of being true.

There are no other historians from the first century BC that document Caesar's Civil War or Gallic War commentaries as being first hand accounts either. If you require as a criteria a contemporary to document an account as being first hand to confirm that it is in fact first hand, you've just annihilated the vast majority of ancient history with that one.

Caesar yet again....I not saying the Gospels have to line up on all my points of credibility for determining the authors, but when the Gospels do not line up on one of my points I have to seriously question how we can say with confidence who wrote them, or if they were indeed first hand accounts.

3. No objective evidence? The church fathers may not be "objective" in the strictest sense I'll concede that. But it is evidence that you need to deal with, not brush aside. There's also no "objective" evidence for Caesar's authorship either. It's the same for Tacitus as well.

Now you've added Tacitus to your Caesar arguments, but I'm glad you are conceding that the church fathers may not have been objective. Also, I'm dealing with the evidence, the problem for you is there isn't very much evidence in the Gospels that would lead an objective person to conclude who the authors are, or if they are first hand accounts. You cited Caesar over and over again to somehow show that people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels, I really don't find this line of logic very compelling.

Your methodology just rendered some very important historical works for which authorship is rarely questioned as officially "anonymous." Do you still think it's a good methodology? BTW, how credible a book "looks" is irrelevant to determining authorship.

Once again, we are not talking about other historical works, we are talking about the Gospels. However, I would like you to try and argue that we have the same amount of historical record for the supposed Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as we do for Caesar. Do you have any historical record of these Gospel writers? Besides all this, there are not millions of people that argue that not correctly interpreting the works of Caesar will cause someone to be sent to an eternal torture, but millions will say that the Gospels point the way to salvation. With this in mind, it is more important to me to study the credibility of the Gospels than it is for me to study the works of a long ago leader which has NO bearing on my life today.

I don't give any brownie points to a document being old. Just because the Gospels were written 2000 years ago does not mean I cannot use modern methods of credibility to determine who the author's might be.

That is called an anachronism. It's a very common fallacy among critics of the Bible.

Why is it a fallacy? Should we not use our modern methods of deduction to solve questions from long ago? If not, why not?

No. My logic is simple. Let's use a standard methodology that isn't pre-constructed with the sole intention of rendering the Gospels "anonymous." Let's use the same methodology we use for secular works. If the Gospels are rendered hopelessly anonymous with that same methodology, fair enough (it actually doesn't make a big difference historically speaking anyway). Why look at the Gospels in a vacuum? Your logic says, "Hey, everybody did equally bad but instead of bell curving the score I'm going to only fail Joe and pass everyone else. I don't like Joe or agree with some of his answers and he should have done better anyway."

I didn't construct my methodology to simply render the Gospels as "anonymous" writings, I just look at the Gospels themselves for evidence. The fact is they were written anonymously, you can't argue differently and be considered a reasonable person. The authors did not put their name on the books, do you think that makes the writings not anonymously written? I don't look at the Gospels in a vacuum, I just look at the Gospels themselves and not works of Caesar to see if I can make a good guess as to who wrote these books. From the Gospels themselves I do not see much to conclude persons name Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them.

You are parroting Richard Carrier's strawman. I'm not claiming the Gospels are histories, nor is main stream Christianity, in the strictest sense of the word. You and Richard are. They are more of a biography genre. So we shouldn't expect them to read like a work by Josephus or Tacitus. Another false expectation on your part. As well as a categorical fallacy.

How can something be a biography if the author doesn't put his name on it and writes in the third person? Take a trip to Barnes and Noble this weekend and look under the biography section and see if you can find a biography that doesn't have the authors name on it, and is written in the third person. Hard for a reader to learn much from a biography if the author doesn't identify himself, don't you think??

Iraneus (ca. 180AD) said, " ...after their death[Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."

How would Iraneus know this over 120 years after the book of "Mark" was written? Does Iraneus mention how he discovered this?

Internal evidence seems to confirm that Mark's account was generally speaking based upon Peter's teaching. As well, Peter is centre stage among the disciples throughout Mark as we should expect from Mark. Peter is first to be mentioned and described as being close to Jesus. Peter is mentioned more times in Mark than in Matthew or Luke.

What is this internal evidence that confirms Mark's account was generally speaking based upon Peter's teaching? Simply saying it, does not make it so. Also, where in the Bible are we told about someone named Mark traveling with Peter? Peter apparently wrote two books of the Bible, does he mention someone named Mark ONCE in his two books? No he doesn't. Do you not look for internal corroborative evidence from the Bible, it sure would help your case if some existed.

External evidence that Matthew authored a gospel:
"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. (Origen ca. 200AD as Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 6:25

).

Learning by tradition is hardly overwhelming evidence, especially 120 plus years after "Matthew" was written.

"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

- Papias (ca. 110-120AD as quoted by Eusebius EC, 6)[/quote]

You might want to look into Papias more, he said some interesting things about Jesus that you would probably take issue with. You cite Papias quite a bit so it is important to look at the credibility of your main source, also Eusebius isn't the most credible person either. Even by his own admission. I only tell you this because you don't want to be caught off guard if you are ever debating with someone who knows a bit more about these sources than the quotes you provide.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus (ca. 180AD)

Again, where does Irenaeus get this information 120 years after the fact? Does he cite any sources? I haven't found any that he used.

Internal evidence can be found in Matthews subtle nuances that we would expect from a tax collector such as technical uses of monetary terms in Matthew 22:15-22 as compared to Mark or Luke. Increased awareness of monetary amounts 18:21-35, 25:14-30.

Is this really convincing to you?

Matthew differentiates his account of being called by Jesus from Mark in the use of "Matthew" as opposed to the use of "Levi" in Mark and Luke. Matthew also uses "the House" instead of "his house" found in Mark and Luke in the same account describing his calling by Jesus.

This isn't much deviation for someone who apparently is telling about being called to be a disciple by the God of the universe. Do you really believe that the author of "Matthew" has personalized this account by changing a couple words? Just use common sense, would you write your testimony in the third person and almost word for word like someone else described it? Would you not add any personal touches or thoughts?

There is ample internal and external evidence for these two books and others. They are certainly no worse off than other ancient works. As I said. The Gospels are just as "anonymous" as any other generally accepted work from antiquity. You're assertion that the Gospels are "anonymous" is unfounded.

There is ample internal and external evidence in your opinion, not mine. The authorship of the Gospels might be just as worse off as other ancient works, no disagreement there, but that doesn't make the authorship of the Gospels anymore credible to me. Obviously my assertion that the Gospels are "anonymous" is not unfounded as there are many biblical scholars that share my opinion, if my view was unfounded then it would be much more of a universal opinion as to the authorship of the Gospels.

Although I disagree with your conclusion I wouldn't say your position is unfounded, I would simply say I don't agree with it. In the end the evidence speaks to your mind as demonstrating Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John authorship yet for me the evidence doesn't show this.

I do give you credit for obviously researching this issue as I can clearly see that you have spent a lot of time on it. While I disagree with your conclusions I do respect that you have at least attempted to back up your position with research and evidence. This is more than I can say for many that have the same conclusions that you do, but cannot give any detailed reason why.

[Zzyzx]

.
TruthSeeker,

Your arguments are compelling. I do not envy those who attempt to oppose you in debate.


ZZ