Gospel Writers

[JoeyKnothead]

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Can we verify any of the words attributed to these writers are their own, and have been accurately reproduced?

[Flail]

They were writing a CENTURY or two after the proclaimed events. HOW did they know what transpired a hundred or two hundred years before their time? WHAT were their sources of information, and how reliable were those sources?

THIS is the nature of "substantiation" of bible claims -- citing writers who cannot have known personally and who do not detail how they learned what they wrote. How does anyone know that they were not simply repeating stories told, repeated, passed down, modified, exaggerated or whatever for centuries?

HISTORICAL METHOD

Historical method does not require that the document be written either by a personal eyeswitness of events or even be "contemporaries" of the subject - if this was the case we would be forced to reject most of what we accept as ancient history today. While of course reliable eyewitness testimony gives added weight to an account, the accepted criteria is that first source be deemed, as Historian David Hackett Fischer puts it the best relevant evidence.

The *requirement* that all first sources be written by personal acquaintences of the subject is something no serious scholar finds anything short of ridiculous; this is simply not the criteria by which ancient historical (or even present day) narratives are assessed. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

• In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies"e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates"would fade into legend. -- Historian, William Durant
  
  The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers. -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

People report seeing and experiencing God every day, some of them write of those experiences....do you take them as 'Gospel' as well?....even if you have information as to their identity and character? Which ones to believe and which to discard? Do you believe all Christians and zero Muslims regardless of who they are? Do you consider claims of the supernatural on the same level as historical claims of common occurrences? Do you consider un-evidenced claims made in any book as evidence or only those you choose to believe because they fit your preconceived notions?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 45:

...
#QUESTION: What evidence do we have of the authorship of the gospels?
...
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

I once met the man that met Andy Griffith, does this mean I know Andy Griffith?
---------------

From Post 48:

Historical method does not require that the document be written either by a personal eyeswitness of events or even be "contemporaries" of the subject - if this was the case we would be forced to reject most of what we accept as ancient history today.
...

This indicates to me the "historical method" is a weak means of determining just who wrote these gospels. The observer will of course draw their own conclusions.

...
So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

"...out of hand demanding evidence..." is, to me, an indication of just how much emotional baggage comes with religious faith. I propose those who rely on faith to make truth claims would likely consider dismissal of claims made on faith as being "out of hand" dismissals.

Why "out of hand" dismissal of a claim that can't be shown to be true? I propose this is a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to state or imply that folks who reject Bible claims do not have a valid reason for rejecting a given claim - even though the "evidence" we are offered is such as, "Well this'n here met that'n there's great-grandmother, and she met the guy who used to tell the tale, and really, are you going to call some stranger's great-grandmother a liar?"

[Zzyzx]

.
I disagree with the attempt to equate the bible with historical documents or to use historical standards to evaluate its validity. Instead, I suggest equating the bible to other religious writings and to myths and fables, and applying the same standards we use to evaluate those similar sources. If we accept bible tales of incredible events as truthful and accurate, similar events claimed in other folk tales should be equally accepted.

Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

There is a "double standard" when events claimed are directly contradictory with what we know of the real world.

Notice that no credible historian claims that Alexander the Great came back from the dead. If that sort of claim is/was made, we are entirely justified in increasing the demand for evidence that it actually happened and was not simply a legend or myth passed down and exaggerated through centuries of retelling.

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand

"Reject out of hand" is different from "reject after careful evaluation"

demanding "evidence"

If a person claims they fly through the sky unaided, would you ask for evidence?

to the exclusion of an assessement of the content

The content of bible many or most stories is directly contrary to what is known of the real world. Donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, virgins are not impregnated by spirits, dead bodies do not come back to life after days in the grave. Assessment of the content suggests that it is legend, myth, fable or fiction rather than an accurate and truthful historical account.

and perceived integrity of the writers

What, exactly, is the "perceived integrity of the writers" and upon what is that assessment based? The writers are unidentified, and they wrote promotional material for a religious splinter group. How does one evaluate the integrity of them or their writings?

and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

Notice that other unsubstantiated tales, myths and legends are NOT accepted as historically valid (unless one is willing to accept Norse, Egyptian, Greek, and Aztec "god stories" as historically valid).

Which of the above shall be accepted, which rejected, and why?

Why are Christian "god tales" any more historically valid than the "god tales" of other religions and cultures?

[Flail]

Zzyzx wrote:

If a person claims they fly through the sky unaided, would you ask for evidence?

I am not interested in credible evidence. If I become an 'evidence hound' I will never believe. Evidence is for buying cars and houses, trusting science and surviving in the real world. 'Gods' don't require evidence, they 'live' via dogma and indoctrination.

What might make me believe BibleGod claims however, is surrounding me with like minded adherents, chanting, singing, listening to dogma, succumbing to propaganda, sermons and ritual practices, reading Holy books and promotional materials....you will know when my indoctrination is complete when I proclaim the truth of pre-packaged supernatural BibleGod claims without evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you and Joey are asking can we reasonably determine, using the methods of determining authorship of ancient texts, the identity of the gospel authors, then the answer is yes I believe we can.

Kindly do so -- identify gospel writers and show readers that the identification is soundly based and is something more than assigned names.

[WinePusher]

I disagree with the attempt to equate the bible with historical documents or to use historical standards to evaluate its validity.

Then it seems that you are disagreeing with most New Testament and Biblical Scholars who approach the Bible using the Historical Method.

Instead, I suggest equating the bible to other religious writings and to myths and fables, and applying the same standards we use to evaluate those similar sources. If we accept bible tales of incredible events as truthful and accurate, similar events claimed in other folk tales should be equally accepted.

If thats the case, would it be your opinion that the entire Bible is myth and fable? It is not consistent to compare the Bible with myths and fables (The Odyseey, The Aeneid, The Epic Of Gilgamesh) if the Bible is not itself entirely mythical.

Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

There is a "double standard" when events claimed are directly contradictory with what we know of the real world.

Notice that no credible historian claims that Alexander the Great came back from the dead.

I don't believe that any of the ancient texts pertaining to Alexander the Great make the claim that he rose from the dead, do they?

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand

"Reject out of hand" is different from "reject after careful evaluation"

As Jehovah's Witness cited: "The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy."

The New Testament record was not written centuries after the events, but rather only decades after the events. So, using this standard it is the New Testament would seem to be more trustworthy then the accounts of Alexander the Great.

[Woland]

Just out of curiosity: is any Christian here really suggesting that we should give some sort of historical credibility to the claimed miracle accounts in the Bible, based on the quantity and quality of the evidence at hand, which would somehow even help to justify belief in these specific supernatural tales, but not others with similar "evidence" (i.e. claims made by a few religious people a long time ago)?

Is it that Christians dispute that other myths and superstitions also have similar "evidence" (claims + faith) in their support?

-Woland

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 56:

As Jehovah's Witness cited: "The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy."

The New Testament record was not written centuries after the events, but rather only decades after the events. So, using this standard it is the New Testament would seem to be more trustworthy then the accounts of Alexander the Great.

How does knowing who wrote of A the G help us determine who wrote the Gospels?

[Zzyzx]

.

I disagree with the attempt to equate the bible with historical documents or to use historical standards to evaluate its validity.

Then it seems that you are disagreeing with most New Testament and Biblical Scholars who approach the Bible using the Historical Method.

It is not uncommon for me to disagree with biblical scholars and theologians, and it is not surprising that those who promote the work as historically accurate might attempt to apply historical methodology.

If such people (or their representatives) are willing and able to debate the issue, I am more than willing to engage them in Head to Head debate.

Instead, I suggest equating the bible to other religious writings and to myths and fables, and applying the same standards we use to evaluate those similar sources. If we accept bible tales of incredible events as truthful and accurate, similar events claimed in other folk tales should be equally accepted.

If thats the case, would it be your opinion that the entire Bible is myth and fable?

Is the entire bible myth or fable? It appears to contain occasional non-mythological information. However, mythical parts (if any) are not distinguished from non-mythical parts (if any). If anyone claims to know which are which, kindly identify the parts of the bible that are mythical and those that are not " AND provide a means by which that distinction is made between myth and truth in the bible.

Do you suggest that any mythical work that contains some non-myth must be evaluated by historical standards?

It is not consistent to compare the Bible with myths and fables (The Odyseey, The Aeneid, The Epic Of Gilgamesh) if the Bible is not itself entirely mythical.

Lets compare the bible to writings about Egyptian, Greek and Norse gods that are now considered mythical.

1. What, exactly, makes the bible more historical or more accurate and truthful than tales about the other gods?

2. Why, exactly, should the bible be considered more historical than other god tales that are now considered mythical?

3. Or, shall ALL tales about gods be considered historical?

I see little difference between biblical supernatural tales and claims vs. the tales and claims made for other gods. Apologists typically regard stories about Egyptian, Greek and Norse gods as being mythical " but insist that their own tales are historical.

Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

There is a "double standard" when events claimed are directly contradictory with what we know of the real world.

Notice that no credible historian claims that Alexander the Great came back from the dead.

I don't believe that any of the ancient texts pertaining to Alexander the Great make the claim that he rose from the dead, do they?

Exactly. Incredible claims of supernatural ability are not regarded as credible by historians (excepting possibly theological historians).

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand

"Reject out of hand" is different from "reject after careful evaluation"

As Jehovah's Witness cited: "The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexanders death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy."

The New Testament record was not written centuries after the events, but rather only decades after the events. So, using this standard it is the New Testament would seem to be more trustworthy then the accounts of Alexander the Great.

Notice that what I said was, Reject out of hand is different from reject after careful evaluation.

Notice also that I do not defend tales of Alexander the Great " and do not claim to know what parts of the story are literally true and which are not. IF I claimed such knowledge and defended Alexander tales, you might have a point " but I do not. What others accept is not binding upon me and is not anything that I need defend.

I refuse to accept bible tales as truthful and accurate for a number of reasons, ONE of which is lack of contemporary recording and verification of the claimed events by DISCONNECTED sources. Another is that the tales purport to describe events that contradict what is known of the real world.

I consistently refuse to accept ANY tales about ANY ancient (or modern) characters that claim supernatural abilities or feats UNLESS the claims can be shown to be truthful and accurate (which has not happened). When tales include talking donkeys or snakes, virgins being impregnated by spirits, people living inside fish, chariots flying through the air, dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave, etc, I regard those tales as mythical. Anyone who maintains otherwise is welcome to show me reason to accept the tales as truthful.

If a work presents such tales as truthful, I question the veracity of the entire work with the attitude, If they will lie to me about the little things, they will lie to me about the big things and Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[flitzerbiest]

Is the entire bible myth or fable? It appears to contain occasional non-mythological information.

As does Gone with the Wind.

[quote="Zzyzx"Do you suggest that any mythical work that contains some non-myth must be evaluated by historical standards?[/quote]

This would appear to be the argument, although the question as you posed it nearly answers itself.