Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm (This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 2:26 pm by Randy Carson.)
(June 3, 2015 at 12:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(June 3, 2015 at 11:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?
And I repeat that there are solid reasons why your cherished belief that Christianity is based upon "stories...recorded thirty years later...by many, many anonymous tellers" is simply crap.
But you can't let that go, because if you consider the alternative, your whole world changes.
As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.
Quote:Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70
So 40 years after the crucifiction (give or take) by someone who is a child of a convert.
How about Mathew?
Quote:Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[77] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[78] While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus.[79] According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention.[80] Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.[81]
According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[78] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[78] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[82]
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.
Luke:
Quote:Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[87] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.[88] Luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic.[89] Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' mission and message,[90] but Geza Vermes concludes that this theme is not authentic to the historical Jesus.[91] As is the case with Matthew, much controversy has surrounded the Lukan birth narrative.[80]
Some scholars[92][93] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[94]
As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to as late as 90 AD.[95][96][97]Donald Guthrie argues, however, that Acts was written in the early 60s AD (since the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), and therefore the Gospel of Luke would have to have been written prior to that, around AD 60.[/url]
John:
Quote:John was likely composed at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Anatolia]Ephesus, though other possibilities are Antioch, Palestine and Alexandria.[103] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[104] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[105]
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[106][107] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[108] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[109][110] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[111]
Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][112]
I've left the hotlinks in the footnote live, so you can see what the text is based on.
Jenny-
Until I've been a member for 30 days, I'm not permitted to counter your Wikipedia links with links of my own.
However, I own and have actually read books that would call much of what the Wiki article says into question. So, I could provide plenty of sources for the view I have laid out in the OP.
But let's say for arguments' sake that you're right. the first gospel, Mark(?), was written around AD 70. So what? In the cultural context of Judaism, that would be NOTHING for the disciples to contend with.
See, it's your assertion that the Gospels cannot be reliable. And in order to discredit them, you have to accept the idea that no one could possibly have gotten the story straight after xx years. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of what we know of oral cultures, of the ability to memorize huge amounts of data and to recall it accurately, and of the role that the community of believers would have played in keeping the Jesus story within very narrow boundaries. IOW, I like the fact that the eye-witnesses wrote early and often, but I'm not dependent upon that fact. It's just another piece of circumstantial evidence that may help skeptics overcome their doubts if they think it through.
Be honest, if you had been a witness to something significant, and later you heard someone telling a false version of the event, you, as a living witness, would be in a position to call that person on the carpet for their additions, omissions and errors, wouldn't you?
But you won't concede that ability to the early Church. Nooooo, they were all biased and eager to expand the notion that Jesus was God. So, they just kept piling one miracle on top of another until the man became the God.
(The fact that there is no evidence that the Gospel changed over the course of time, is a problem, but why let that spoil a good thing? Just ignore it.)
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 3, 2015 at 2:21 pm
(June 3, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Nestor Wrote:
(June 3, 2015 at 11:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.
I quite enjoy possessing a mind open to knowledge of the truth as adherence to rational principles surveying the evidence guides me to it. It's sad that you would rather revel in confusion over silly and vain stories that you willfully mistake for reality. Oh well. It's your life.
Yeah, that's me...reveling in my confusion.
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on Tim O'Neill's trouncing of the Jesus Mythers?
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 3, 2015 at 2:26 pm
(June 3, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(June 3, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Nestor Wrote: I quite enjoy possessing a mind open to knowledge of the truth as adherence to rational principles surveying the evidence guides me to it. It's sad that you would rather revel in confusion over silly and vain stories that you willfully mistake for reality. Oh well. It's your life.
Yeah, that's me...reveling in my confusion.
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on Tim O'Neill's trouncing of the Jesus Mythers?
I agree with Tim O'Neill.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
(June 3, 2015 at 2:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: I hear there were thousands of them back then, take your pick! Stick a robe on him and get him fondling some lepers and you're golden.
Wow, Randy now has an atheist strawman in his signature? I think I've seen quite enough from him now.
Indeed messiahs were ten a penny at that time as parodied in the life of brain.
"Your the real messiah and I should know I've followed a few"
(ca. 4 BCE–30 CE), in Galilee and the Roman province of Judea. Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians. It is estimated that there are 2.5 billion Christians in the world today,[8] making Jesus of Nazareth the most widely followed Messiah claimant.
Menahem ben Judah (?), the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee, was a leader of the Sicarii. When the war broke, he armed his followers with the weapons captured at Masada and besieged Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem, overpowering the troops of Agrippa II in Judea and forcing the Roman garrison to retreat. Emboldened by his success, he behaved as an "insufferable tyrant",[10] thereby arousing the enmity of Eleazar, the Temple Captain and de facto a rival Zealot rebel leader, who had him tortured and killed.[11] He may be identical with the Menahem ben Hezekiah mentioned in the Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin 98b) and called "the comforter that should relieve".
Theudas (?–46 CE), a Jewish rebel of the 1st century CE, at some point between 44 and 46 CE, Theudas led his followers in a short-lived revolt. Some writers are of the opinion that he may have said he was the Messiah.[12]
The Egyptian (between 52 and 58), Flavius Josephus (in Jewish War 2.261-262) says "There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him." livius.org
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm (This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm by Minimalist.)
Quote:The Gospels generally afford us no evidence whatever for discerning a
historical Jesus. Because of their extensive use of fabrication and literary
invention and their placing of other goals far ahead of what we regard as
'historical truth', we cannot know if anything in them has any historical
basis-except what we can verify externally, which for Jesus is next to
nothing. They are simply myths about Jesus and the gospel. They are not
seriously researched biographies or historical accounts-and are certainly
not eyewitness testimonies or even collected hearsay. Their literary art and
structure are simply too sophisticated for that. This is equally expected on
both minimal historicity and minimal mythicism, however, and therefore
(apart from what we've already accounted for in determing the prior probabi-
lity in Chapter 6) the Gospels have no effect on the probability that Jesus
existed, neither to raise or lower it.
Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pgs 508-09
