The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

I'm still waiting for actual evidence ( not bible bullshit ) that jesus was more than the figment of some 2d century asshole's imagination.

[Pyrrho]

I'm still waiting for actual evidence ( not bible bullshit ) that jesus was more than the figment of some 2d century asshole's imagination.

Hey, it may well have been the figment of some first century asshole's imagination!

[Randy Carson]

I already answered the when question in detail in post #65.

Did you miss it?

So?

The when question is the least important of all.

The where is a bit more important, but the why trumps all of them.

Of course. But why what? Why did the authors write the gospels at all?

I'm happy to respond...just let me know exactly what the question is. 

Thanks.


And btw, do just blow off the "when" question.

First, you accused me of not responding. I did.

Second, the proof that the NT was written very early addresses many atheist arguments....so, yeah. It's important.

[Minimalist]

I'm still waiting for actual evidence ( not bible bullshit ) that jesus was more than the figment of some 2d century asshole's imagination.

Hey, it may well have been the figment of some first century asshole's imagination!

We have evidence of this shit in the 2d century....although it takes until much later for some church fuck to attach the names to it.  But in the first century?  Nada.  A gap so embarrassing that they tried to forge some which is a dead giveaway about the total bullshittery of jesusism.

[Pyrrho]

Hey, it may well have been the figment of some first century asshole's imagination!

We have evidence of this shit in the 2d century....although it takes until much later for some church fuck to attach the names to it.  But in the first century?  Nada.  A gap so embarrassing that they tried to forge some which is a dead giveaway about the total bullshittery of jesusism.

The dates I have seen as estimates for when they were written would suggest first century imagination at work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

What is the source of your dating estimation?

[Randy Carson]

Ok, I'll play this game.  I enjoy it.

Me, too. And let me say that I really appreciate your post. You are the first person to actually engage the material that I have presented. So, for that I salute and thank you.

I'm going to trim some of my post and yours in order to prevent this thing from becoming ridiculously unwieldy. If you think  have missed something important, just let me know.

I.B.1. - When were the gospels written?

Many people who are skeptical of the claims of Christianity argue that the books which record the life of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written decades or even a century or more after Jesus. Because of this time gap, they argue that the gospels cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts of the events which occurred in Jesus’ lifetime because it would not be possible for the author or the author’s sources to have been alive during Jesus’ lifetime.

For the sake of this discussion, assume that Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The closer the books of the New Testament were written to that date, the easier it is to accept the possibility that they are accurate records of the events that took place during His time on earth.

I think the bolded is only part true.  A significant length of time between an event and the recording of that event could make it more probable that facts are accidentally misstated or misremembered.  However, I don't believe the same holds true for intentional misstatements, misrepresentations, or biases.  In fact, I would argue that, as suggested before, people who believed that their master was immortal, then watched him die, would have far more motivation to embellish or lie than would people trying to give a retrospective account.  Either way, this isn't exceedingly important.

Well said. If the disciples were lying, then nothing they said really matters, does it? Naturally, I will be arguing at some point that they had no motivation to do so, but for now, we're in agreement.  

So, when were the Gospels written? Although estimates vary (with skeptics typically arguing for a later dating), mainstream scholars conservatively date the authorship of the four gospels as follows:

    Matthew - AD 65-85
    Mark - AD 60-75
    Luke - AD 65-95
    John - AD 95-100

The most likely times are: Matthew: 70 to 80 AD, almost certainly after Mark (pre-70 is a "minority view"); Mark: Almost certainly 67 AD (after the start of the first Jewish revolt in 66 but before the death of Nero in 68); Luke: probably 80 to 90 (contemporaneous or just prior to Acts); John: finished between 90 and 100; started earlier and revised multiple times.

It looks like we are in the ballpark of one another overall, and I personally would not want to go to war over any of these dates. Let me just say this:  In the notes of my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV-CE), the authors of the commentary Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Curtis Mitch state that due to the silence concerning the destruction of the Temple, "Matthew's Gospel can be reasonably dated before AD 70." Ignatius is a pretty reputable publisher.

That said, I think that pushing the dating as I did in my post is not without some justification. The argument is laid out and it IS plausible - even probable.

Additionally, it is generally believed that the gospels (with the exception of John) were based upon oral tradition as well as written source materials known to scholars by names such as “M” and “Q”, etc. Like the autographs of the gospels, these documents are no longer in existence, but they would have pre-dated the gospels themselves by as much as decade or more.

For anyone reading, the Q Document is believed to have been a list of quotations attributed to Jesus.

Nice. Thank you.

I.B.2. – How low can we go?

In addition to this written pre-gospel material, the oral tradition and the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were still alive and able to speak about what they had seen and heard were available to the authors of the gospels. The existence of these two sources could push the dating of the gospel message back by many years – even to the days of the events themselves.

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support an early dating of the gospels.

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

When you say "The New Testament"... what do you mean here?  That at least the first book of it was written prior to 70 AD?  If so, you're almost certainly right.  If you mean the whole thing, or even the four gospels (or the 3 "synoptic" - that is, not John - gospels), you're almost certainly wrong.

Wow. That was a typo on my part, and you are correct. I did mean the gospels and of course, all of Paul's epistles, that of Peter, etc. After all, they were martyred in AD 64 & 65, respectively. But I think John and probably the Johanine epistles were written after AD 70. Thanks for catching that; I will make sure that I have correct that line in my Word document, also.

The New Testament fails to mention the seige of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.

This is silly.  If I was writing a biography of John F. Kennedy, I wouldn't mention that JFK Jr. died in a plane crash.  You're trying to have it both ways - you're saying that the gospels are supposed to be accurate representations of Jesus's life, but then expecting them to contain the history of the times and such.

Simply put: virtually everyone who's ever studied the issue - aside from apologists doing everything they can to push the dates earlier and earlier (do we know anyone like that?) - would have to be wrong in order for your assertion to be correct regarding the dating of Luke.

TRJF-

I think you have missed something here; I'm referring to the book known as the Acts of WHO? the Apostles? So, yes, I think it would be expected to contain some mention of the two greatest leaders of the Early Church, don't you? Especially in light of the fact that the deaths of lesser luminaries WERE mentioned by Luke in his two books.

So, this portion of my argument concerned Acts...not Luke.

Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

You get some things right about Luke.  He was highly educated, and a scholar.  

Hear! Hear! Are all of you skeptics hearing what this man is saying. You go, TR!    

Contrary to early tradition, he likely did not know Paul (or, at least, was not one of his companions), as evidenced by contradictions between their accounts (mostly concerning Paul himself).  

Whoops. You may have overlooked this passage from Paul:

Colossians 4:14-18
14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15 Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. 17 Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” 18 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

and this written from prison in Rome:

2 Timothy 4:9-11
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

and this:

Philemon 1:23-25
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

Your assertion that the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 62 is strange, especially because James, brother of John, died in 62. You've given no evidence that Luke would have necessarily included the death of James, brother of Jesus, had it taken place before he wrote his gospel.  But even if that's true, the death of James, brother of Jesus is variously dated to 62 or 69.

James the brother of John was martyred in AD 44.

Acts 12:2
He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

This occurred before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (c. AD 50)

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:

Paul quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, and refers to it as scripture!  But there’s more. In his letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 53), Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.

No one believes that Paul wrote 1 Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus).  These were written in the 90s or 100s.  It was very common in these days for people who respected (or wanted to profit off the name recognition of) an earlier scholar/author to sign with that person's name rather than their own.

You mean other than Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria?  

Seriously, while the Pauline authorship of these epistles was questioned in the nineteenth century, the case against is neither airtight nor immune to criticism, and the tradition that Paul himself wrote these epistles can be convincingly defended.

I can go on with the rest if you like, but I've already given you much to think about. We agree in some points, at least, and I thank you in advance for your time.

Thoughts?

[Minimalist]

What is the source of your dating estimation?

A.  The basis for most of that is the alleged destruction of the temple in 70.  Since even these bible translators don't buy the prophecy shit they attribute the supposed prophecy against the temple a being written after the Romans sacked and burned it.  The problem is that "jesus" did not "say" it would be sacked and burned.  He "said":

13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

g-mark

That did not happen in 70.  But it DID happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the site in order to build Aelia Capitolina.  Xtians have a built in bias to want to push their shit as far back as possible but we do have a historical occurrence where precisely what was "predicted" did occur. 

B.  No one heard of these "gospels" before the 2d century.  Justin Martyr writing in 160 never mentions them most likely because Irenaeus did not name them until 185.  Further, Justin never heard of any "paul" either.  Which is even more amazing.

C.  No Roman writer prior to Celsus ( coincidentally c 180 ) mentions anyone named "jesus."  They did mention "Christus" or more probably "Chrestus" but "jesus?"  Nope.  Not a word.

D.  Prior to Marcion's issuance of his canon c 140, consisting of the "Gospel of the Lord" (supposedly "luke" in an original form, and ten epistles from this "paul" character we have no indication that xtians were very much impressed with written books.  After Marcion they started writing shit down...apparently recognizing a good idea when they saw one but before that?  Zilch.

E.  The fact that later xtian writers tried to forge references to their boy in Josephus or in total fabricated documents like the Acts of Pilate is indicative of the fact that legitimate references did not exist.  If they had, they would not have needed to forge some.

F.  Scholars are pushing back against the xtian claims to have first century documents. 

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the dates proposed by COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001, and JAROŠ, 2006 are often too early.

You can't credit the claims of these bible-thumping shitheads just because they oh-so-desperately want their bullshit to be true.

[Randy Carson]

Hey, it may well have been the figment of some first century asshole's imagination!

We have evidence of this shit in the 2d century....although it takes until much later for some church fuck to attach the names to it.  But in the first century?  Nada.  A gap so embarrassing that they tried to forge some which is a dead giveaway about the total bullshittery of jesusism.

Second century, eh? 


By AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch could already refer to the Christian Church as the Catholic Church and to the hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons.

Ignatius of Antioch

Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for 'he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.' In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. Be ye subject to the bishop, to the presbyters [priests], and to the deacons.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1]) 

Clearly, the Church was up and running long before the second century even began, Min. 

And let's not forget that Peter was already referring to Paul's letters in the following terms:

2 Peter 3:15-17
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

See it? People twist Paul's letters, and other scriptures, to their own destruction. Paul's letters are being placed on par with "other scriptures". 

Before the second century.

[Minimalist]

Once again, you are far too ready to believe your own bullshit. 

But...if you think the fucking pope is infallible you'll believe anything. 


http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-for...-250AD.htm


https://global.oup.com/academic/product/...s&lang=en&

[Randy Carson]

What is the source of your dating estimation?

A.  The basis for most of that is the alleged destruction of the temple in 70.  Since even these bible translators don't buy the prophecy shit they attribute the supposed prophecy against the temple a being written after the Romans sacked and burned it.  The problem is that "jesus" did not "say" it would be sacked and burned.  He "said":

13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

g-mark

That did not happen in 70.  But it DID happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the site in order to build Aelia Capitolina.  Xtians have a built in bias to want to push their shit as far back as possible but we do have a historical occurrence where precisely what was "predicted" did occur. 

B.  No one heard of these "gospels" before the 2d century.  Justin Martyr writing in 160 never mentions them most likely because Irenaeus did not name them until 185.  Further, Justin never heard of any "paul" either.  Which is even more amazing.

C.  No Roman writer prior to Celsus ( coincidentally c 180 ) mentions anyone named "jesus."  They did mention "Christus" or more probably "Chrestus" but "jesus?"  Nope.  Not a word.

D.  Prior to Marcion's issuance of his canon c 140, consisting of the "Gospel of the Lord" (supposedly "luke" in an original form, and ten epistles from this "paul" character we have no indication that xtians were very much impressed with written books.  After Marcion they started writing shit down...apparently recognizing a good idea when they saw one but before that?  Zilch.

E.  The fact that later xtian writers tried to forge references to their boy in Josephus or in total fabricated documents like the Acts of Pilate is indicative of the fact that legitimate references did not exist.  If they had, they would not have needed to forge some.

F.  Scholars are pushing back against the xtian claims to have first century documents. 

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the dates proposed by COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001, and JAROŠ, 2006 are often too early.

You can't credit the claims of these bible-thumping shitheads just because they oh-so-desperately want their bullshit to be true.

If this is what passes for "evidence" among atheists, I encourage all of you to re-evaluate.

When did the sacrifices offered in the Jewish Temple come to an end? 

Think for yourselves, people. (Or read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Je...28AD_70%29

And why did the sacrificing of bulls and sheep and goats end?

Hebrews 10:11-14
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

After the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, the sacrificing of bulls and goats was no longer required for the forgiveness of sins.

The Jewish Temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Jews know this. Ask them.