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?

[flitzerbiest]

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.

Non sequitur.

If I write, "I am the King of Spain", does this claim have more validity than an almanac of European politics merely because I wrote it more recently?

This is the sort of thing that apologists uncritically advance as compelling reasoning. It is also why my personal quest to become an effective apologist for Christianity led to the destruction of my faith. Bad arguments are worse than no argument at all.

[Zzyzx]

.

Bad arguments are worse than no argument at all.

Exactly.

That is why in debate I ask questions that evoke bad arguments from those who set themselves up to be "Crusaders for Christ". When their "best" argument or evidence is a BAD argument, the cause they champion is diminished.

More condemning than bad arguments are transparent attempts to avoid difficult or embarrassing questions, "ducking and weaving", using unsavory debate tactics, and refusing to discuss critical issues.

A favorite question is, "What evidence exists, outside bible tales make the claim, that Jesus was/is 'divine'?". Since that is THE central issue in mainstream Christian doctrine, dogma and literature, the question deserves a truthful and accurate answer. And, the truthful and accurate answer is, "There is no extra-biblical evidence of divinity".

Instead of answering honestly and openly, most "Christian Defenders" either duck the question or offer excuses (some quite creative) for the lack of evidence (usually without admitting the lack).

[Flail]

.

Bad arguments are worse than no argument at all.

Exactly.

That is why in debate I ask questions that evoke bad arguments from those who set themselves up to be "Crusaders for Christ". When their "best" argument or evidence is a BAD argument, the cause they champion is diminished.

More condemning than bad arguments are transparent attempts to avoid difficult or embarrassing questions, "ducking and weaving", using unsavory debate tactics, and refusing to discuss critical issues.

A favorite question is, "What evidence exists, outside bible tales make the claim, that Jesus was/is 'divine'?". Since that is THE central issue in mainstream Christian doctrine, dogma and literature, the question deserves a truthful and accurate answer. And, the truthful and accurate answer is, "There is no extra-biblical evidence of divinity".

Instead of answering honestly and openly, most "Christian Defenders" either duck the question or offer excuses (some quite creative) for the lack of evidence (usually without admitting the lack).

Glaring as well are those who refrain from or obfuscate debate by holding themselves out as experts or linking to others who are erudite in 'these matters' beyond other debaters and thus proclaim that we just don't get it or need to study up....if they are that intelligent and gifted, they should be perfectly able to lower their standards to make a simple point, engage in explanation or answer a simple challenge. They often appear frustrated by our 'ignorance', or perhaps they are just perplexed by the topic.

[WinePusher]

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.

Non sequitur.

You're saying that the date a text is written is a non-sequitur in regards to its veracity?

External criticism: authenticity and provenance.
Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries

1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_c ... provenance

If I write, "I am the King of Spain", does this claim have more validity than an almanac of European politics merely because I wrote it more recently?

No, do you consider this a consistent comparison?

This is the sort of thing that apologists uncritically advance as compelling reasoning. It is also why my personal quest to become an effective apologist for Christianity led to the destruction of my faith. Bad arguments are worse than no argument at all.

That's fine, but what I've seen is that you're ignoring the procedures of the Historical Method.

[flitzerbiest]

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.

Non sequitur.

You're saying that the date a text is written is a non-sequitur in regards to its veracity?

External criticism: authenticity and provenance.
Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries

1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_c ... provenance

If I write, "I am the King of Spain", does this claim have more validity than an almanac of European politics merely because I wrote it more recently?

No, do you consider this a consistent comparison?

This is the sort of thing that apologists uncritically advance as compelling reasoning. It is also why my personal quest to become an effective apologist for Christianity led to the destruction of my faith. Bad arguments are worse than no argument at all.

That's fine, but what I've seen is that you're ignoring the procedures of the Historical Method.

Or questioning their validity. There is no basis whatsoever to suppose that since the NT was (largely) written within 200 years or so of the death of Jesus that the fantastical claims it makes about his life are true.

[WinePusher]

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

No, but then again I do not believe that myth dominates the Bible as much as you are suggesting. There are certain parts of the Bible which seem to be mythical, and there are not. Jesus certainly was not a myth, nor were the Kings of Israel and the Early Church Movement.

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?

The fact that what we know about the Greek Gods come mostly from Epic Poetry, which is not a literary genre that is used to determine and discern history.

If we we're comparing the Genesis Creation myth with the Babylonian Creation myth, then I would not claim that one is more historical then the other, both are appropriatly considered myth. However, if we go further into the New Testament it can be considered more historical then another religion because it is backed up by external evidence.

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).

I agree that if an event is extraordinary and cuts aganist already settled knowledge, it should generally not be considered historical. But a vast amount of Scholarship has gone intot the Resurrection and I would say that there exists a sbstantial amount of evidence to support it.

[flitzerbiest]

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

No, but then again I do not believe that myth dominates the Bible as much as you are suggesting. There are certain parts of the Bible which seem to be mythical, and there are not. Jesus certainly was not a myth, nor were the Kings of Israel and the Early Church Movement.

Failure to see myth in the accounts of Jesus would seem to me to be a critical reading error. Announcement by choirs of angels? Walking on water? Paying the temple tax with a coin found in a fish's mouth? Rising from the dead? There is little reason to doubt that an itinerant preacher named Jesus lived and gathered a following in the region of Galilee. There is similarly little reason to believe that the magical stories written about him by subsequent generations have any grounding in the reality of his life.

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?

The fact that what we know about the Greek Gods come mostly from Epic Poetry, which is not a literary genre that is used to determine and discern history.

If you want to make a literary argument, you should probably acknowledge up front that historical realism did not exist as a literary genre at the time of the composition of the gospels.

If we we're comparing the Genesis Creation myth with the Babylonian Creation myth, then I would not claim that one is more historical then the other, both are appropriatly considered myth. However, if we go further into the New Testament it can be considered more historical then another religion because it is backed up by external evidence.

Like what? Beyond historical context, there is no corroboration whatsoever. None. There isn't even hard evidence that Jesus existed, if it comes to that.

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).

I agree that if an event is extraordinary and cuts aganist already settled knowledge, it should generally not be considered historical. But a vast amount of Scholarship has gone intot the Resurrection and I would say that there exists a sbstantial amount of evidence to support it.

Argument, yes. Evidence, no. None. Not a scrap of it.

[WinePusher]

Failure to see myth in the accounts of Jesus would seem to me to be a critical reading error. Announcement by choirs of angels? Walking on water? Paying the temple tax with a coin found in a fish's mouth? Rising from the dead? There is little reason to doubt that an itinerant preacher named Jesus lived and gathered a following in the region of Galilee. There is similarly little reason to believe that the magical stories written about him by subsequent generations have any grounding in the reality of his life.

If you want to write off the miracle claims surrounding Jesus then you would need to address the reasons why he was able to gain such as large following of disciples, during and after his earthly ministry. There were many self-proclaimed Messiah figures during the time of Jesus, and none of them seemed to gain as much influence as Jesus did.

The fact that what we know about the Greek Gods come mostly from Epic Poetry, which is not a literary genre that is used to determine and discern history.

If you want to make a literary argument, you should probably acknowledge up front that historical realism did not exist as a literary genre at the time of the composition of the gospels.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You do realize that Annals did exist at the time of the composition of the Gospels? In fact, annals seem to precede the Gospels with the existence of 1 & 2 Chroniciles and 1 & 2 Kings.

If we we're comparing the Genesis Creation myth with the Babylonian Creation myth, then I would not claim that one is more historical then the other, both are appropriatly considered myth. However, if we go further into the New Testament it can be considered more historical then another religion because it is backed up by external evidence.

Like what? Beyond historical context, there is no corroboration whatsoever. None. There isn't even hard evidence that Jesus existed, if it comes to that.

Not true, we have an abundance of extra-biblical sources and societal movements attesting to Jesus' ministry and existence in the New Testament. Would you think it rational to accept the Civil Rights movement in America if Dr. King did not exist?

[flitzerbiest]

Failure to see myth in the accounts of Jesus would seem to me to be a critical reading error. Announcement by choirs of angels? Walking on water? Paying the temple tax with a coin found in a fish's mouth? Rising from the dead? There is little reason to doubt that an itinerant preacher named Jesus lived and gathered a following in the region of Galilee. There is similarly little reason to believe that the magical stories written about him by subsequent generations have any grounding in the reality of his life.

If you want to write off the miracle claims surrounding Jesus then you would need to address the reasons why he was able to gain such as large following of disciples, during and after his earthly ministry. There were many self-proclaimed Messiah figures during the time of Jesus, and none of them seemed to gain as much influence as Jesus did.

So magic is the most likely explanation? If you want to study the rise of Christianity, you may do so, but beginning that study with uncritical acceptance of supernaturalism renders the study pointless, doesn't it?

Like what? Beyond historical context, there is no corroboration whatsoever. None. There isn't even hard evidence that Jesus existed, if it comes to that.

Not true, we have an abundance of extra-biblical sources and societal movements attesting to Jesus' ministry and existence in the New Testament.

I've read through this "abundance" of extra-biblical sources. None of them were anywhere near contemporary, and reading them all takes less than 15 seconds and provides no information. On the basis of this, you think it wise to abandon everything that we know about the natural order?

[WinePusher]

If you want to write off the miracle claims surrounding Jesus then you would need to address the reasons why he was able to gain such as large following of disciples, during and after his earthly ministry. There were many self-proclaimed Messiah figures during the time of Jesus, and none of them seemed to gain as much influence as Jesus did.

So magic is the most likely explanation? If you want to study the rise of Christianity, you may do so, but beginning that study with uncritical acceptance of supernaturalism renders the study pointless, doesn't it?

That's a fair point, but you are running the risk of approaching this with a supernatural bias. The fact is, if you are a scientific naturalist and approach nature with a uniformitarianist view, you are mutually contradicting yourself. It is an unreconcibilable paradox.

The view that the natural world is all there is and that the laws of nature are fixed and permanent refutes itself.

Not true, we have an abundance of extra-biblical sources and societal movements attesting to Jesus' ministry and existence in the New Testament.

I've read through this "abundance" of extra-biblical sources. None of them were anywhere near contemporary, and reading them all takes less than 15 seconds and provides no information.

I don't know about this....practically none of the ancient texts we have are contemporary. However, this is does not seem to be a hinderence for historians when studying the ancient world. I think that you're raising the bar when it ceoms to Christianity, but keeping it relatively low for other historical events and documents.

On the basis of this, you think it wise to abandon everything that we know about the natural order?

Of course not, but you cannot reasonably infer uniformitarianism based on the atheistic worldview. The fact is, violations of the natural order are not impossible.