Credibility of the Gospels

[Confused]

Perhaps I am going to yet again show my ignorance here, but I will follow through with it as always.

Why is it that the Gospels found in the Bible are considered more credible than the Gospels of the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi? For example, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

[Caligar]

I think the most honest answer to that is that some books offer less problems than others.

[Easyrider]

Why is it that the Gospels found in the Bible are considered more credible than the Gospels of the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi? For example, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

The short answer is that the latter are 2nd century Gnostic redactions that weren't written by Judas or Thomas. The first century Biblical Gospels have much better pedigrees.

[juliod]

The short answer is that the latter are 2nd century Gnostic redactions that weren't written by Judas or Thomas. The first century Biblical Gospels have much better pedigrees.

How do you know that the gnostic are the redactions and the catholic are the originals? The gnostics would have claimed exactly the opposite. All we know is that the catholics won.

DanZ

[Confused]

Why is it that the Gospels found in the Bible are considered more credible than the Gospels of the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi? For example, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

The short answer is that the latter are 2nd century Gnostic redactions that weren't written by Judas or Thomas. The first century Biblical Gospels have much better pedigrees.

When was it determined these were 2nd century Gnostic redaction. Why are they less reliable? When was it determined that these weren't written by Judas or Thomas and how do you know Matthew was written by Matthew and Luke by Luke etc...

[Easyrider]

Why is it that the Gospels found in the Bible are considered more credible than the Gospels of the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi? For example, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

The short answer is that the latter are 2nd century Gnostic redactions that weren't written by Judas or Thomas. The first century Biblical Gospels have much better pedigrees.

When was it determined these were 2nd century Gnostic redaction.

That's been well know for years. Check it out on Yahoo or Google.

Why are they less reliable?

They're 2nd century. Judas and Thomas lived in the 1st century. Secondly, they exhibit gnostic language, which arguably didn't come into vogue until the late 1st century.

and how do you know Matthew was written by Matthew and Luke by Luke etc...

I just gave you some of the historical references for Matthew's authorship. Did you read them?

As for Luke,

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259). See also Acts of the Apostles - Authorship.

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century, first by Marcion (c. 160), the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), and Irenaeus (c. 180) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two things: first, the use of "we" in Acts chapters 16, 20, 21 and 27 suggests the writer traveled with Paul; second, the "medical language" employed by the writer is, in the opinion of the Roman Catholic writers of the encyclopedia, "identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... d_audience

(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke

There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition. The writer of the "we" sections claims to be a companion of St. Paul. The "we" begins at Acts, xvi, 10, and continues to xvi, 17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at xx, 5 (Philippi), and continues to xxi, 18 (Jerusalem). It reappears again at the departure for Rome, xxvii, 1 (Gr. text), and continues to the end of the book.

Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the rest of the Acts:
 from the natural way in which they fit in;
 from references to them in other parts; and
 from the identity of style.
 The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative, but there is no change of language. The characteristic expressions of the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the "we" as in the other sections. There is no change of style perceptible. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive examination of every word and phrase in the first of the "we" sections (xvi, 10-17), and shows how frequent they are in the rest of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with the other Gospels. His manner of dealing with the first word (hos) will indicate his method: "This temporal hos is never found in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it occurs forty-eight times in St. Luke (Gospels and Acts), and that in all parts of the work." When he comes to the end of his study of this section he is able to write: "After this demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from a source, and so was not composed by the author of the whole work, take up a most difficult position. What may we suppose the author to have left unaltered in the source? Only the 'we'. For, in fact, nothing else remains. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have transformed everything else into his own language. As such a procedure is absolutely unimaginable, we are simply left to infer that the author is here himself speaking." He even thinks it improbable, on account of the uniformity of style, that the author was copying from a diary of his own, made at an earlier period. After this, Harnack proceeds to deal with the remaining "we" sections, with like results. But it is not alone in vocabulary, syntax and style, that this uniformity is manifest. In "The Acts of the Apostles", Harnack devotes many pages to a detailed consideration of the manner in which chronological data, and terms dealing with lands, nations, cities, and houses, are employed throughout the Acts, as well as the mode of dealing with persons and miracles, and he everywhere shows that the unity of authorship cannot be denied except by those who ignore the facts. This same conclusion is corroborated by the recurrence of medical language in all parts of the Acts and the Gospel.

That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is the unanimous voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language proves that the author was a physician. Westein, in his preface to the Gospel ("Novum Test. Græcum", Amsterdam, 1741, 643), states that there are clear indications of his medical profession throughout St. Luke's writings; and in the course of his commentary he points out several technical expressions common to the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen. These were brought together by the Bollandists ("Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). In the "Gentleman's Magazine" for June, 1841, a paper appeared on the medical language of St. Luke. To the instances given in that article, Plummer and Harnack add several others; but the great book on the subject is Hobart "The Medical Language of St. Luke" (Dublin, 1882). Hobart works right through the Gospel and Acts and points out numerous words and phrases identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides. A few are found in Aristotle, but he was a doctor's son. The words and phrases cited are either peculiar to the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than in other New Testament writings. The argument is cumulative, and does not give way with its weakest strands. When doubtful cases and expressions common to the Septuagint, are set aside, a large number remain that seem quite unassailable. Harnack (Luke the Physician! 13) says: "It is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more especially from the style, of this great work that the author was a physician by profession. Of course, in making such a statement one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics, and yet the arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing. . . . Those, however, who have studied it [Hobart's book] carefully, will, I think, find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic coloring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who was either a physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And, indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sections, but for the whole book." Harnack gives the subject special treatment in an appendix of twenty-two pages. Hawkins and Zahn come to the same conclusion. The latter observes (Einl., II, 427): "Hobart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof that the author of the Lucan work was a man practised in the scientific language of Greek medicine--in short, a Greek physician" (quoted by Harnack, op. cit.).

External Evidence

The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal character of the two books, is strengthened when taken in connection with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel; and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and Origen were great travellers, and all three were omniverous readers. They had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding centuries; but they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in question. This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the majority of classical works. But we have much earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria was probably born at Athens about A.D. 150. He travelled much and had for instructors in the Faith an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a Hebrew in Palestine. "And these men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father, came by God's providence even unto us, to deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were derived from their ancestors and the Apostles". (Strom., I, i, 11: cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", V, xi). He holds that St. Luke's Gospel was written before that of St. Mark, and he uses the four Gospels just as any modern Catholic writer. Tertullian was born at Carthage, lived some time in Rome, and then returned to Carthage. His quotations from the Gospels, when brought together by Rönsch, cover two hundred pages. He attacks Marcion for mutilating St. Luke's Gospel. and writes: " I say then that among them, and not only among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them in Christian fellowship, the Gospel of Luke, which we earnestly defend, has been maintained from its first publication" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).


The testimony of St. Irenæus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenæus, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.

The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David--that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott, "Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the "Dialogue", cv, we have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Irenæus, were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenæus, not many years after. This conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first century.

Irenæus, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position for forming a judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we are of knowing who were the authors of Scott's novels, Macaulay's essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc of "Tracts for the Times" etc. But the argument does not end here. Many of the heretics who flourished from the beginning of the second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's Gospel as authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable position long before these heretics broke away from the Church. The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about A.D. 150, makes use of our Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the phenomena of variant readings, to be found in Clement, Irenæus, Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a long period of previous copying. Finally, we may ask, if the author of the two books were not St. Luke, who was he?

Harnack (Luke the Physician, 2) holds that as the Gospel begins with a prologue addressed to an individual (Theophilus) it must, of necessity, have contained in its title the name of its author. How can we explain, if St. Luke were not the author, that the name of the real, and truly great, writer came to be completely buried in oblivion, to make room for the name of such a comparatively obscure disciple as St. Luke? Apart from his connection, as supposed author, with the Third Gospel and Acts, was no more prominent than Aristarchus and Epaphras; and he is mentioned only in three places in the whole of the New Testament. If a false name were substituted for the true author, some more prominent individual would have been selected.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[Cogitoergosum]

i don't think the gospels are reliable at all. Let's see, where did jesus live again? oh yes nazareth. Did nazareth really exist at the time of jesus?
Wikipedia says:

“Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea,” writes American archaeologist James Strange.[4] Strange variously estimates Nazareth’s population at “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people” in the time of Christ, and in another publication at “a maximum of about 480.” [5] However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[6] The latter view is supported by the results of the excavations at Nazareth which do not furnish evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times,[7] despite many claims to the contrary made in the literature.[8] B. Bagatti (the principle archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth) has unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artefacts,[9] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. Thus, it is possible that the town of Nazareth came into existence only with the spread of Christianity.

So don't know when or where jesus was born or lived, but still very credible indeed.(sarcasm)

[Easyrider]

i don't think the gospels are reliable at all. Let's see, where did jesus live again? oh yes nazareth. Did nazareth really exist at the time of jesus?
Wikipedia says:

“Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea,” writes American archaeologist James Strange.[4] Strange variously estimates Nazareth’s population at “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people” in the time of Christ, and in another publication at “a maximum of about 480.” [5] However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[6] The latter view is supported by the results of the excavations at Nazareth which do not furnish evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times,[7] despite many claims to the contrary made in the literature.[8] B. Bagatti (the principle archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth) has unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artefacts,[9] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. Thus, it is possible that the town of Nazareth came into existence only with the spread of Christianity.

So don't know when or where jesus was born or lived, but still very credible indeed.(sarcasm)

Since you mentioned Bagatti, maybe you can munch on this:

Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE.

More in the link below.

http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine%2048/nazareth.html

[Goat]

i don't think the gospels are reliable at all. Let's see, where did jesus live again? oh yes nazareth. Did nazareth really exist at the time of jesus?
Wikipedia says:

“Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea,” writes American archaeologist James Strange.[4] Strange variously estimates Nazareth’s population at “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people” in the time of Christ, and in another publication at “a maximum of about 480.” [5] However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[6] The latter view is supported by the results of the excavations at Nazareth which do not furnish evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times,[7] despite many claims to the contrary made in the literature.[8] B. Bagatti (the principle archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth) has unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artefacts,[9] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. Thus, it is possible that the town of Nazareth came into existence only with the spread of Christianity.

So don't know when or where jesus was born or lived, but still very credible indeed.(sarcasm)

I see two conflicting claims..

Where is the actual archelogical data, and a peer reviewed article so better understanding can be made.

However, I will also point out that the earliest record we have of Nazareth being CALLED nazareth is in the 3rd Century. It is not unknown for towns and cities to be renamed. There is no evidence that the town currently called nazareth was refered to by that name before the 3rd century.

[Cogitoergosum]

Since you mentioned Bagatti, maybe you can munch on this:

Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE.

More in the link below.

http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine%2048/nazareth.html

I went on that link and read it THERE IS NO MENTION OF BAGATTI there. So your site falls under the category of literrature that is accounting for pottery where excavations did not find any. You have to do better than that.
Here is the book by baggati written in 1969 way after 1955
Bagatti, B. Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1 (1969), pp. 272-310.