The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

Where does any author of fiction get their idea from?  Human imagination is extraordinary.

[Randy Carson]

Um Randy?  Could we have a little rebuttal on the subject of why you think the gospels reflect eyewitness testimony or why eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove extraordinary claims?  Or do you concede?

Jenny-

My apologies...as you know, I was being asked to engage in the OTHER threads.

Clearly, I have too much on my plate to respond to each and every question.

I'm not conceding anything, and I will try to get back to this thread ASAP.

[Ravenshire]

Clearly, I have too much on my plate to respond to each and every question.

You're the one that over-filled his plate starting all those threads...

Go ahead and use it as an excuse though. After all, any excuse works when you're looking for one.

[Cyberman]

Aw, you're hacking his martyr chip.

[DeistPaladin]

luke census quirinius jimmy akin

If you've read my other posts, I've already addressed the various apologies trying to square that circle. If you have anything new to offer, do tell.

In future, if you have a counter-argument, either offer it or link to it. 

The link button is the one with the chain link thing right above where you write your posts. You click and drag over the text you want to link and then paste the web address of the counter-argument you think is so clever. Hey, if you really want to be helpful, you can quote the passage of the web page you find most pertinent. You just highlight the part of the web page, click "copy" and then use the quote function above where you type, and then "paste" the passage.

[Randy Carson]

Clearly, I have too much on my plate to respond to each and every question.

You're the one that over-filled his plate starting all those threads...

Go ahead and use it as an excuse though. After all, any excuse works when you're looking for one.

"All those threads"?

Three. I've started three that are active.

[Cyberman]

And you still can't keep up with those three. The watchword here is "moderation".

[Randy Carson]

I've been busy answering questions in other threads, and this thread has been woefully neglected by me.

However, after reading DeistPaladin's online debate with Chi Pan(?), I decided to write another installment of my series. Enjoy!

II.B.1. – Who Wrote the Gospels?

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools” which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?

Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”

Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.”

Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.

“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men – meaning men who were closely associated with them – and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.”

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
   
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
   
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? 
   
4. Why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true that Matthew wrote it?
   

The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels” that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.

Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Papias (d. ca. AD 100)

Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and was a disciple of  Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Of Matthew, Papias writes:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)

Origen (AD 185-254)

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

---

And you still can't keep up with those three. The watchword here is "moderation".

For a combined total of 1,000+ replies at present...all of which I'm supposed to read, reflect upon and respond to thoughtfully...or everyone from the mods to the members are screaming that I'm not behaving appropriately.

---

Having failed to teach Randy in some basic lessons in how logic works, I'm now going to cross-examine the witnesses. Everyone get out your Bibles, Occam's Razors and a full Haz-mat suit because this is going to be bloody. 

Sooooo dramatic.    

Mark: First of the Witnesses, Sort of

We'll start with Mark since his was the first Gospel that was penned.

How do you know this? What is your source? Irenaeus suggests that Matthew actually wrote first in Aramaic, so I'm curious as to why you hold this to be the case.

His chapter 13 mentions the destruction of the temple so most Bible scholars date it to around 70 CE.

To be more precise, it would probably have been written BEFORE AD 70. If you're going to attempt to dismantle me in "bloody" fashion, I expect you to use that razor with great precision.

He's not exactly what you'd call an eye-witness, since he was a companion of Paul, who in turn saw Jesus in a vision. However, the New Oxford Annotated Bible says he "drew from a rich variety of oral traditions" which is a nice, flowery way of saying he heard a bunch of stuff from a bunch of places. 

Which is just another way for you to say nothing...as you're about to admit

Mostly, his Gospel is based on the preaching of Peter.

Ah, there you go. So, that's not quite the same as saying that "he heard a bunch of stuff from a bunch of places" now, is it?

However, since Peter was not present during parts of the Gospel, by the very admission of the Gospel itself (for example, when Peter was with the servants while Jesus was being questioned by the high priests), he must have gotten his information elsewhere.

Which is not terribly problematic when you actually THINK.

After the resurrection, Jesus spent 40 days with the disciples. And after the ascension, the disciples spent 10 more days waiting for Pentecost. What do you think the boys were discussing all during that time? So, apart from the fact that scripture says that Jesus was teaching his disciples, there is also the promise of the Holy Spirit to remind them of all that Jesus had said to them during his ministry.

Actually, we don't even know for certain who wrote the Gospel of Mark in the first place but it is attributed to him "by tradition" though even the New Oxford Bible admits there is "little evidence to support this claim". 

The Pontifical Biblical Commission of the Catholic Church (which was there in the beginning) says it was Mark. My Ignatius Study Bible says the same. And I have Papias, Irenaeus and Origen among countless others, so I don't give a rip what the editors of the footnotes of your Protestant Bible have to say.

Holy scriptures of the era were prone to "interpolation" and "pseudo-epigraphy" and we do know of at least one significant and uncontested alteration to the Gospel of Mark. The original version of chapter 16 was ended at verse 8, where some guy in white told the visiting ladies "he is risen" and the women all run away afraid. A later edition added 12 verses to the Gospel to make a more satisfying ending. Considering this is the story of the resurrection of Jesus, a rather important point in the tale, one wonders why the author didn't get that account right the first time.

Are you suggesting that Mark was unaware of the resurrection after travelling with Peter and Paul all those years?  

So, to review, Mark is:

• Of dubious authorship
  
• based on a hearsay account
  
• mixed with unknown sources of hearsay
  
• written down 4 decades after the events
  
• with at least one significant alteration
  

Heh...yeah.

To properly review, Mark is:

• Written by the companion of Peter and Paul
  
• Written prior to AD 53
  
• Based upon the preaching and eye-witness accounts of Peter 
  
• "Mixed" with the eye-witness accounts of other apostles whom Mark would have heard during his travels with Peter and Paul
  
• Accurate up to and including the addition of the second ending
  

And he's the first witness on the scene, your honor. Next witness...

I'll dissect the rest of your ramblings later...time for a bio-break.

---

luke census quirinius jimmy akin

In future, if you have a counter-argument, either offer it or link to it. 

The link button is the one with the chain link thing right above where you write your posts. You click and drag over the text you want to link and then paste the web address of the counter-argument you think is so clever. Hey, if you really want to be helpful, you can quote the passage of the web page you find most pertinent. You just highlight the part of the web page, click "copy" and then use the quote function above where you type, and then "paste" the passage.

Love to, dude, but the mods won't let me.

I'm a new member, and I'm not allowed to link, cut & paste, etc. Hell, I may not even be allowed to post my own work which I compose in Word, but I'm fuzzy on exactly where the line is drawn there.

At least for 13 more days.

[Randy Carson]

And he's the first witness on the scene, your honor. Next witness...

Matthew: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Seriously, you'd think the original editors of the Bible would have had more sense than to put the testimony of such an transparently sleazy liar into the official version. I'm not saying that theologians are typically people of integrity but, as professional con artists, one would expect them to favor bringing those with more guile into their team. Give Christianity it's due, it's mostly a slick package constructed with minimal material that one must dig into before exposing all the faux history and fraud. This Gospel sticks out a bit.

Hilarious. Does the term "criterion of embarrassment" mean nothing to you? Never mind.

The fact that the gospel written for a Jewish audience was attributed to a hated tax-collector and Roman-collaborator ought to give even the most strident anti-Christians pause. Why do that unless it was TRUE?  So, yeah, it does stick out a bit for that very reason, doesn't it?

Sorry, slick, but you fail big time on that one.

Based on the nature of the Gospel, the target audience were Jews. The book is filled with references to the Old Testament and alleged prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Small wonder that so many Jews remained unconvinced since anyone familiar at all with the OT can immediately spot where the so-called "prophecies" were either fabricated or blatantly distorted.

Suuuurrre they are. But let me get this straight...in addition to your truly questionable knowledge of the New Testament authorship so painfully on display in your previous tirade, now, we're to believe that you are a skilled exegist of Old Testament prophecy, also? You do amaze us so.

We're only two chapters into Matthew before we encounter three whoppers.

(Actually, we're only two gospels into your ramblings, and we've already seen enough whoppers to justify a cease and desist letter from the attorneys at Burger King.   )

1. "Virgin Shall Conceive": This is a reference to Isaiah chapter 7. Now toss out the whole Bethula/Almah debate as a concession to the Christians, the entire chapter is clearly neither a prophecy concerning the messiah nor a reference to anything but the time of Isaiah. Specifically, Isaiah chapter 7 is about the coming war with Syria and Isaiah's assurances that the invaders would not prevail for a young maiden (presented at that time) has conceived and will bear a son, and this shall be a sign that "God (is) with us". By the way, the great prophet Isaiah turned out to be wrong and the Syrians totally prevailed. 
   
2. "Out of Egypt": This was a reference to Exodus, not the future messiah. 
   
3. "Rachael Weeping": The slaughter of the innocents, an atrocity not found in history but is found in the story of Moses, which in turn was lifted from the story of Sargon, was supposedly a fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremiah. However, the verse in question were about the Babylonian captivity. 
   

You can find better exegesis on any number of websites or in good books. I suggest you try to find some of them.

It goes on and on like this, culminating in the cursory, two verse description of the "Attack of the Zombie Saints", where Matthew glibly asserts that the saints of old rose from the graves and were seen by many. 

As Thomas Paine quipped, had the saints such as Moses or Abraham actually risen from the dead to testify to the living, not a single unconverted soul should have been left in all of Jerusalem. 

Ironically, if such an event had NOT happened, then none of the citizens of Jerusalem would have let Matthew get away with asserting that it had. After all, the gospel was not preached in some obscure village in remote corner of Galilee. The apostles stood up in Jerusalem in the day of Pentecost and proclaimed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Funny how no one ran down to the tomb and produced the body to put an end to the discussion.

Wish I could do that...but you insist on continuing...

[Minimalist]

Love to, dude, but the mods won't let me.

PM it to me.  I'll post it for you.

I love a good laugh.