Many of Jesus' most famous miracles are recorded in only one book or another of the New Testament, and of the 4 main accounts, Luke is hearsay, John is actually anonymous, Mark is a follower of a follower, and probably not an eye-witness, and Matthew and John are purported to be disciples, but don't even end with the ascension of Jesus, which seems odd if it's the last time you're going to see someone that important to you...
Some examples of uncorroborated stories:
Water into wine - only John
Heal royal official's son - only John
Raise widow's son - only Luke
2 blind men - only Matthew
Mute man - only Matthew
38yr cripple - only John
Deaf man with speach impediment - only Mark
Woman with 18yr infirmity - only Luke
Man with dropsy - only Luke
10 men with leprosy - only Luke
Lazarus raised - only John
Ear of servant - only Luke etc.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by Newbie » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:48 pm
- Newbie
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:34 pm
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by jimwalton » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:27 pm
First of all, all of the gospels are anonymous. It was not the nature of the genre to include one's name in the body of work, so they are all anonymous.
Second, though, is that in the case of all four of them, there is no evidence from the earliest of sources that their authorship was ever in doubt. Every single reference to them in early works agree that the four authors were indeed the authors. There is no disagreement anywhere about this. As a matter of fact, if authorship was going to be contrived, other names would have made more sense, viz. Peter, for one.
Thirdly, to be the only one to record an event doesn't give evidence that it's untrue. Think back to Watergate. The story was broken by Woodward and Bernstein, and they were the only ones telling that story. It didn't make it untrue.
You say "Luke is hearsay." Interesting. Luke is the one who says specifically that he "carefully investigated" to write "an orderly account" so that these things might be known "for certainty." That sounds like research, not rumor, to me.
Though Mark was not one of the 12, it is strongly thought that he was a follower of Jesus and travelled with him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist). It is even thought by many that he was in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' betrayal (Mark 14.51-52).
Why do I trust the accounts of the four gospels?
1. More than any other documents in ancient history, we have hundreds of thousands of pieces of the NT, enough to give us an incredibly reliable text to work from.
2. The gospels show historical accuracy.
3. They show archaeological accuracy.
4. Most estimates are that they were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, rendering them critique-able and verifiable.
5. The accounts are filled with details that could only be known (or would bother to be recorded) by eye-witnesses, giving the impression that the originators of the stories were actually there.
6. The four accounts, though different, are clearly complementary.
7. The oral culture of the day gives us adequate reason to believe the stories wee communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording. (It couldn't have been anyway, since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and the gospels were written in Greek.)
8. The writers of the gospels were not above criticizing themselves, a mark of both honesty and integrity.
9. The writers of the gospels are known by history as men of integrity.
10. Based on what we know of their lives, the era, and their accounts, they can be considered as credible sources for the information written.
11. There is no hint of any kind of conspiracy, fraud, or collusion.
12. The events they wrote about were public occurrences, not private experiences. Detecting fraud or error would have been easy.
13. There is no hint that these men were insane.
14. Their writings have been pored over for millennia and have been accepted by great numbers of scholars.
15. While they certainly lived in a non-literate culture, they didn't live in an illiterate one. These people were obviously not buffoons, barbarians, or blockheads, but were demonstrably fairly cogent and logical.
Just naming a few.
Second, though, is that in the case of all four of them, there is no evidence from the earliest of sources that their authorship was ever in doubt. Every single reference to them in early works agree that the four authors were indeed the authors. There is no disagreement anywhere about this. As a matter of fact, if authorship was going to be contrived, other names would have made more sense, viz. Peter, for one.
Thirdly, to be the only one to record an event doesn't give evidence that it's untrue. Think back to Watergate. The story was broken by Woodward and Bernstein, and they were the only ones telling that story. It didn't make it untrue.
You say "Luke is hearsay." Interesting. Luke is the one who says specifically that he "carefully investigated" to write "an orderly account" so that these things might be known "for certainty." That sounds like research, not rumor, to me.
Though Mark was not one of the 12, it is strongly thought that he was a follower of Jesus and travelled with him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist). It is even thought by many that he was in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' betrayal (Mark 14.51-52).
Why do I trust the accounts of the four gospels?
1. More than any other documents in ancient history, we have hundreds of thousands of pieces of the NT, enough to give us an incredibly reliable text to work from.
2. The gospels show historical accuracy.
3. They show archaeological accuracy.
4. Most estimates are that they were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, rendering them critique-able and verifiable.
5. The accounts are filled with details that could only be known (or would bother to be recorded) by eye-witnesses, giving the impression that the originators of the stories were actually there.
6. The four accounts, though different, are clearly complementary.
7. The oral culture of the day gives us adequate reason to believe the stories wee communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording. (It couldn't have been anyway, since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and the gospels were written in Greek.)
8. The writers of the gospels were not above criticizing themselves, a mark of both honesty and integrity.
9. The writers of the gospels are known by history as men of integrity.
10. Based on what we know of their lives, the era, and their accounts, they can be considered as credible sources for the information written.
11. There is no hint of any kind of conspiracy, fraud, or collusion.
12. The events they wrote about were public occurrences, not private experiences. Detecting fraud or error would have been easy.
13. There is no hint that these men were insane.
14. Their writings have been pored over for millennia and have been accepted by great numbers of scholars.
15. While they certainly lived in a non-literate culture, they didn't live in an illiterate one. These people were obviously not buffoons, barbarians, or blockheads, but were demonstrably fairly cogent and logical.
Just naming a few.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by Conundrum » Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:56 pm
First, yes, they are all anonymous.
Second, Early sources are sometimes hundreds of years after the purported time of writing. An example is
Mark, who in the article you linked, no one seems to be able to agree on who he was...
Luke is hearsay, 5 of the tall tales in my list above were only in Luke, one of them was a resurrection. None of them are things he witnessed. If I carefully investigated alien abductions, and wrote a book about other people's claimed experiences, I think that would be about the same level.
A number of the items in your list are rather bizarre or are simply claims but no support is given.
Yes, there are lots of copies, there are also lots of copies of the Koran and many other religious books these days, but having lots of copies, even old copies doesn't make a text reliable or true.
Historical accuracy...
and Archaeological accuracy ... The city of Troy was found in part because of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, a book can have historical or archaeologically accurate parts in it, while still not making magical golden fleeces or a story about a giant cyclops who eats whole sheep true.
It's a bit of conjecture to say when these things were written or whether or not they could be critiqued or verified. I would remind you that the prevailing religion of the day was Roman mythology...
"Details that could only be know by eyewitnesses", and yet Matthew and John (who you claim their authorship was never in question) fail to record the account of the last time they ever see their dearest friend, who levitates himself up into the clouds and disappears, this feat is only recorded with detail in the one 2nd hand account written by Luke... or in the short, and seemingly added later copy at the end of Mark.
Additional tall tales would seem to lessen the overall credibility rather than strengthen it.
Again, I would remind you that the prevailing religious beliefs were of a pantheon and stories we today consider mythology, but which were believe every bit as much as what you believe now at that time.
As for honesty...
and integrity...
The dozen plus uncorroborated tall tales I cited above, do not lend themselves well to your claim of honesty or integrity. The article you linked for Mark shows that we know very little for certain even about these key figures. A great many Christians would be better able to name Santa's reindeer or the 7 dwarves than the 12 disciples.
A sincere untruth may not be considered fraud, and writing a repeated claim down as purported truth may not be collusion, but signs are certainly there for these things.
Many of the Roman accounts of that era, that you would reject as patently absurd, are also purported to have happened in public. The world was not nearly as connected then as it is now.
Not insane? Most religious adherents are not insane... That's hardly a large point in favor of anything.
The stories of Hinduism and even ancient Greek and Roman mythology were pored over and accepted by great numbers of scholars. There are increasing numbers of scientologists today that do the same. Large numbers of people trusting Bernie Madoff did not make his financial offerings any more valid.
Again, many cogent and logical people have accepted all other religions as well, no one is implying that otherwise sound and sane individuals don't hold mistaken beliefs. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, was firmly convinced that the Cottingley Fairies were real...
All in all, I think it's a great list that you've put together of reasons why you accept things, it's just the things that you accept are all quite a bit beyond the norm, and reasons like "The authors seem like people of honesty and integrity, and weren't insane" are a bit hard to reconcile with such tall tales.
It's important that we be willing to examine beliefs that we have accepted as true based on popular opinion, wishful thinking, etc. A whopper of story followed by another dozen are certainly a warning sign that one may have gone a road too far.
Second, Early sources are sometimes hundreds of years after the purported time of writing. An example is
Mark, who in the article you linked, no one seems to be able to agree on who he was...
Luke is hearsay, 5 of the tall tales in my list above were only in Luke, one of them was a resurrection. None of them are things he witnessed. If I carefully investigated alien abductions, and wrote a book about other people's claimed experiences, I think that would be about the same level.
A number of the items in your list are rather bizarre or are simply claims but no support is given.
Yes, there are lots of copies, there are also lots of copies of the Koran and many other religious books these days, but having lots of copies, even old copies doesn't make a text reliable or true.
Historical accuracy...
and Archaeological accuracy ... The city of Troy was found in part because of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, a book can have historical or archaeologically accurate parts in it, while still not making magical golden fleeces or a story about a giant cyclops who eats whole sheep true.
It's a bit of conjecture to say when these things were written or whether or not they could be critiqued or verified. I would remind you that the prevailing religion of the day was Roman mythology...
"Details that could only be know by eyewitnesses", and yet Matthew and John (who you claim their authorship was never in question) fail to record the account of the last time they ever see their dearest friend, who levitates himself up into the clouds and disappears, this feat is only recorded with detail in the one 2nd hand account written by Luke... or in the short, and seemingly added later copy at the end of Mark.
Additional tall tales would seem to lessen the overall credibility rather than strengthen it.
Again, I would remind you that the prevailing religious beliefs were of a pantheon and stories we today consider mythology, but which were believe every bit as much as what you believe now at that time.
As for honesty...
and integrity...
The dozen plus uncorroborated tall tales I cited above, do not lend themselves well to your claim of honesty or integrity. The article you linked for Mark shows that we know very little for certain even about these key figures. A great many Christians would be better able to name Santa's reindeer or the 7 dwarves than the 12 disciples.
A sincere untruth may not be considered fraud, and writing a repeated claim down as purported truth may not be collusion, but signs are certainly there for these things.
Many of the Roman accounts of that era, that you would reject as patently absurd, are also purported to have happened in public. The world was not nearly as connected then as it is now.
Not insane? Most religious adherents are not insane... That's hardly a large point in favor of anything.
The stories of Hinduism and even ancient Greek and Roman mythology were pored over and accepted by great numbers of scholars. There are increasing numbers of scientologists today that do the same. Large numbers of people trusting Bernie Madoff did not make his financial offerings any more valid.
Again, many cogent and logical people have accepted all other religions as well, no one is implying that otherwise sound and sane individuals don't hold mistaken beliefs. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, was firmly convinced that the Cottingley Fairies were real...
All in all, I think it's a great list that you've put together of reasons why you accept things, it's just the things that you accept are all quite a bit beyond the norm, and reasons like "The authors seem like people of honesty and integrity, and weren't insane" are a bit hard to reconcile with such tall tales.
It's important that we be willing to examine beliefs that we have accepted as true based on popular opinion, wishful thinking, etc. A whopper of story followed by another dozen are certainly a warning sign that one may have gone a road too far.
- Conundrum
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by jimwalton » Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:29 pm
> An example is Mark
Actually, Mark, is widely considered to have been the first gospel written, and quite a solid case can be made for it having been written between AD 62-64. The earliest manuscript in existence dates to about AD 250, but a fragment exists written sometime between 100-150. Early in the 2nd c., Papias reports of the existence of the gospel. About 150 or so, Justin Martyr quotes extensively from it. It is far more likely written decades after Jesus than centuries, as you claim.
> Luke is hearsay...
It's still surprising that you say this, unless you are going by presuppositions that the accounts are mythological. According to police detectives, there are three kinds of first-hand information that are accepted in courts that qualify as eyewitness information:
1. First-hand experiences: What the eyewitness himself actually saw and heard.
2. First-hand access: Descriptions of events they didn’t personally see, but that a concurrent eyewitness in their world told them about. This is called “hearsay,” but it is admissible in court as it affects the witness’ attitudes and behaviors.
3. First-hand knowledge: What we know about the culture surrounding the event: moods, expressions, terms, idioms, cultural attitudes, etc.
Luke's gospel falls into categories 2 & 3, and doesn't automatically render his account fictitious.
As to the rest, this back and forth is getting too large unwieldy, but I'd like to respond to some:
1. Copies. Of course there are copies of the Qur'an as well, but nothing like the Bible, of which there are about 5600 manuscripts. There is nothing even close to it in the ancient world. Because of the profusion of textual evidence, we can be about 98% certain of the text that we have. While that doesn't make it true, we can be sure we are reading what they wrote.
3. Archaeological accuracy. Yes, but we know what we know about Troy because of literature, history, and archaeology, and that's how you can know what you just said. So also with the New Testament—we know it has tremendous historical accuracy verified by many outside sources and archaeology. It's far from hearsay.
4. I'm quite well aware that the prevailing cultural environment was Roman mythology, but then you are also aware that the prevailing Jewish religious and cultural milieu despised all forms of mythology in dedication to their stalwart theology of monotheism. You also are probably aware that even though the writers of mythography considered what they were writing to be real and true, they did not consider it to be historiography. Writers of myth were writing ideology: how the world works and how it got that way, but not trying to connect those events with events in the human world. There is an insurmountable theological difference between the Jewish culture of 1st c. Palestine and Roman mythology. And the writers of the gospels considered themselves to be writing historiographical narrative, not mythographic accounts.
5. Matthew and John don't record the ascension. Neither does Mark (Mk. 16.9-20 are not authentic). Luke does. You must understand that the gospel writers were writing according to a chosen theme, not a biographical account to include everything. They report historical accounts within a theological and thematic literary framework. It's of no consequence that they choose not to record the ascension.
10. Your presupposition of fiction doesn't discredit the possibility of historiography. If Jesus was God on earth, as claimed by all four gospels, the accounts you consider to be tall tales are simple accomplishments. The first choice to be made about such miracles are whether or not Jesus is whom he claims to be. If he's not God, then none of this matters. It's all a crock. If he's God, these stories are simple to grasp. And if Jesus was capable of miracles, and the disciples saw them as eyewitnesses, their testimony is both reliable and true.
I don't want to just keep writing and writing a wall of text, but I would be glad to discuss more pieces of what we're talking about. It's just I think we have to bite off smaller pieces.
Actually, Mark, is widely considered to have been the first gospel written, and quite a solid case can be made for it having been written between AD 62-64. The earliest manuscript in existence dates to about AD 250, but a fragment exists written sometime between 100-150. Early in the 2nd c., Papias reports of the existence of the gospel. About 150 or so, Justin Martyr quotes extensively from it. It is far more likely written decades after Jesus than centuries, as you claim.
> Luke is hearsay...
It's still surprising that you say this, unless you are going by presuppositions that the accounts are mythological. According to police detectives, there are three kinds of first-hand information that are accepted in courts that qualify as eyewitness information:
1. First-hand experiences: What the eyewitness himself actually saw and heard.
2. First-hand access: Descriptions of events they didn’t personally see, but that a concurrent eyewitness in their world told them about. This is called “hearsay,” but it is admissible in court as it affects the witness’ attitudes and behaviors.
3. First-hand knowledge: What we know about the culture surrounding the event: moods, expressions, terms, idioms, cultural attitudes, etc.
Luke's gospel falls into categories 2 & 3, and doesn't automatically render his account fictitious.
As to the rest, this back and forth is getting too large unwieldy, but I'd like to respond to some:
1. Copies. Of course there are copies of the Qur'an as well, but nothing like the Bible, of which there are about 5600 manuscripts. There is nothing even close to it in the ancient world. Because of the profusion of textual evidence, we can be about 98% certain of the text that we have. While that doesn't make it true, we can be sure we are reading what they wrote.
3. Archaeological accuracy. Yes, but we know what we know about Troy because of literature, history, and archaeology, and that's how you can know what you just said. So also with the New Testament—we know it has tremendous historical accuracy verified by many outside sources and archaeology. It's far from hearsay.
4. I'm quite well aware that the prevailing cultural environment was Roman mythology, but then you are also aware that the prevailing Jewish religious and cultural milieu despised all forms of mythology in dedication to their stalwart theology of monotheism. You also are probably aware that even though the writers of mythography considered what they were writing to be real and true, they did not consider it to be historiography. Writers of myth were writing ideology: how the world works and how it got that way, but not trying to connect those events with events in the human world. There is an insurmountable theological difference between the Jewish culture of 1st c. Palestine and Roman mythology. And the writers of the gospels considered themselves to be writing historiographical narrative, not mythographic accounts.
5. Matthew and John don't record the ascension. Neither does Mark (Mk. 16.9-20 are not authentic). Luke does. You must understand that the gospel writers were writing according to a chosen theme, not a biographical account to include everything. They report historical accounts within a theological and thematic literary framework. It's of no consequence that they choose not to record the ascension.
10. Your presupposition of fiction doesn't discredit the possibility of historiography. If Jesus was God on earth, as claimed by all four gospels, the accounts you consider to be tall tales are simple accomplishments. The first choice to be made about such miracles are whether or not Jesus is whom he claims to be. If he's not God, then none of this matters. It's all a crock. If he's God, these stories are simple to grasp. And if Jesus was capable of miracles, and the disciples saw them as eyewitnesses, their testimony is both reliable and true.
I don't want to just keep writing and writing a wall of text, but I would be glad to discuss more pieces of what we're talking about. It's just I think we have to bite off smaller pieces.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by Conundrum » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:25 pm
"Luke's gospel falls into categories 2 & 3, and doesn't automatically render his account fictitious. As to the rest, this back and forth is getting too large unwieldy, but I'd like to respond to some:"
As you point out, hearsay or "first-hand access" which is really "second-hand information" is acceptable in court only because it shows what various people may have been thinking, it's not acceptable as evidence for the occurrence of events. As for #3, he does have general information about the culture and general knowledge anyone at the time would possess, although that sort of thing is pretty non-controversial in any book.
1. Copies. I'm glad that you're certain that you're reading what they wrote. This seems to be slightly in contradiction with your point in #4 where you admit that the ending of the book of Mark was a later addition, especially considering that most of the copies floating around seem to include that text...
2. Archaeological accuracy. No one contests the existence of the city of Jerusalem, but you don't dig up archaeological evidence for magical occurrences 2000 years ago, and archaeology doesn't lend any support to any of the extraordinary tales in Homer's works or in your religions.
3. I think the miracles of Apollonius were considered just as historical at the time as those attributed to Jesus. You can't simply disregard other beliefs that were accepted wholeheartedly as true at the time and say those religious people were somehow less sincere than your own, and sincerity in no way equals truth.
4. Good of you to admit that having lots of copies doesn't mean they haven't all been modified in some way, or aren't necessarily entirely accurate. You say it's of no consequence they didn't record the ascension. Many people have been thought dead only to come around again. If Jesus doesn't ascend, there's nothing to say that he didn't live out an ordinary life and die again later. I think it's quite important in differentiating him from anyone who's simply been mistaken for dead. It's also evidence that either they may not have been the close disciples that the anonymous books are named after, or that the ascension may not have happened. If you left your home and family to follow someone around for 3 years, that's person's departure would be the sort of significant event in your life that you'd probably mention.
5. I don't presuppose the authors intended it to be fictional. However, many people sincerely believe many things that they pass on as true that never were. If Appolonius were acting on behalf of the gods, then his miracles also are quite reasonable, and since that's what's claimed for him, those stories should be equally simple to grasp, reliable and true. And as you say, if there are no deities at all then both are a crock and none of this matters, except that it matter that time is wasted in defeating any wrong ideas in the world, and money and effort are expended that shouldn't be.
As you point out, hearsay or "first-hand access" which is really "second-hand information" is acceptable in court only because it shows what various people may have been thinking, it's not acceptable as evidence for the occurrence of events. As for #3, he does have general information about the culture and general knowledge anyone at the time would possess, although that sort of thing is pretty non-controversial in any book.
1. Copies. I'm glad that you're certain that you're reading what they wrote. This seems to be slightly in contradiction with your point in #4 where you admit that the ending of the book of Mark was a later addition, especially considering that most of the copies floating around seem to include that text...
2. Archaeological accuracy. No one contests the existence of the city of Jerusalem, but you don't dig up archaeological evidence for magical occurrences 2000 years ago, and archaeology doesn't lend any support to any of the extraordinary tales in Homer's works or in your religions.
3. I think the miracles of Apollonius were considered just as historical at the time as those attributed to Jesus. You can't simply disregard other beliefs that were accepted wholeheartedly as true at the time and say those religious people were somehow less sincere than your own, and sincerity in no way equals truth.
4. Good of you to admit that having lots of copies doesn't mean they haven't all been modified in some way, or aren't necessarily entirely accurate. You say it's of no consequence they didn't record the ascension. Many people have been thought dead only to come around again. If Jesus doesn't ascend, there's nothing to say that he didn't live out an ordinary life and die again later. I think it's quite important in differentiating him from anyone who's simply been mistaken for dead. It's also evidence that either they may not have been the close disciples that the anonymous books are named after, or that the ascension may not have happened. If you left your home and family to follow someone around for 3 years, that's person's departure would be the sort of significant event in your life that you'd probably mention.
5. I don't presuppose the authors intended it to be fictional. However, many people sincerely believe many things that they pass on as true that never were. If Appolonius were acting on behalf of the gods, then his miracles also are quite reasonable, and since that's what's claimed for him, those stories should be equally simple to grasp, reliable and true. And as you say, if there are no deities at all then both are a crock and none of this matters, except that it matter that time is wasted in defeating any wrong ideas in the world, and money and effort are expended that shouldn't be.
- Conundrum
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by jimwalton » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:27 pm
> As you point out, hearsay or "first-hand access"
I guess the burden of proof falls on you to show that something Luke recorded is fictitious, other than that it sounds like it is and there is no external corroboration of it (neither of which are grounds for necessary discrediting). He is known as a careful historian who did thorough research and wrote a reliable account. What did Luke write that you can give evidence as being inaccurate?
> This seems to be slightly in contradiction...
Oh not at all. My point is that manuscript evidence is so abundant and reliable that they can tell that the end of the book of Mark is a later addition.And contrary to what you have said, the earliest manuscripts and the patristic evidence support that Mark ended his gospel at v. 8.
> but you don't dig up archaeological evidence for magical occurrences 2000 years ago...
Well, of course there are things that archaeology can tell us and things that it can't. It has its proper sphere. I wouldn't expect archaeology to confirm that a blind man was healed or that Jesus walked on the water. Those aren't items within the archaeological orbit. But archaeology can tell us about the pool of Bethesda, the Capernaum waterfront, the location of Bethlehem, and the synagogues in the communities. Where archaeology speaks, it speaks in support of the Biblical record.
> I think the miracles of Apollonius...
I don't recall claiming anywhere in anything I wrote that Jesus is the only person who has done miracles.
> Many people have been thought dead only to come around again.
Illness is one thing. Flogging and crucifixion are quite another. Flogging tore the flesh and muscles off of the bones, exposing tendons, bones, and intestines. Crucifixion was a brutal execution of suffocation. Jesus wasn't just sick and then rallied. Nor was he thought dead and revived 48 hours later. He was essentially physically destroyed. If, three days later, he revived and was walking around preaching, "Hey, some day you can have a resurrection body just like mine!", the clear response would be, "Uh, no thanks."
> If Jesus doesn't ascend, there's nothing to say that he didn't live out an ordinary life and die again later.
Again, thanks for calling me to clarify. I never argued that Jesus didn't ascend, or that some of the apostles didn't know about or believe in his ascension. He did, and the apostles were there (Acts 1.2-3, 6-9) and were eyewitnesses of his ascension. What I said was that it was not pertinent to the theme of their gospel, and so was not included. That doesn't mean it wasn't important or they claimed he didn't ascend.
In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, the abrupt ending without even a resurrection appearance points very strongly to the future character of the kingdom of God. The disciples find themselves suspended between the news of the resurrection and the experience of the risen Lord. Jesus is "on the way," going ahead of the still fearful disciples. And the invitation is still open: Will you follow Him? It's a brilliant ending of tension, fear, openness, and hope. Almost as if we expect the words to appear: "To Be Continued..."
What you have failed to do, in your criticism, is to provide one shred of evidence that the gospels are NOT true, aside from your own opinion. I would ask you to set aside your assumptions, and don't make decisions on anything but evidence. Show me what you got.
I guess the burden of proof falls on you to show that something Luke recorded is fictitious, other than that it sounds like it is and there is no external corroboration of it (neither of which are grounds for necessary discrediting). He is known as a careful historian who did thorough research and wrote a reliable account. What did Luke write that you can give evidence as being inaccurate?
> This seems to be slightly in contradiction...
Oh not at all. My point is that manuscript evidence is so abundant and reliable that they can tell that the end of the book of Mark is a later addition.And contrary to what you have said, the earliest manuscripts and the patristic evidence support that Mark ended his gospel at v. 8.
> but you don't dig up archaeological evidence for magical occurrences 2000 years ago...
Well, of course there are things that archaeology can tell us and things that it can't. It has its proper sphere. I wouldn't expect archaeology to confirm that a blind man was healed or that Jesus walked on the water. Those aren't items within the archaeological orbit. But archaeology can tell us about the pool of Bethesda, the Capernaum waterfront, the location of Bethlehem, and the synagogues in the communities. Where archaeology speaks, it speaks in support of the Biblical record.
> I think the miracles of Apollonius...
I don't recall claiming anywhere in anything I wrote that Jesus is the only person who has done miracles.
> Many people have been thought dead only to come around again.
Illness is one thing. Flogging and crucifixion are quite another. Flogging tore the flesh and muscles off of the bones, exposing tendons, bones, and intestines. Crucifixion was a brutal execution of suffocation. Jesus wasn't just sick and then rallied. Nor was he thought dead and revived 48 hours later. He was essentially physically destroyed. If, three days later, he revived and was walking around preaching, "Hey, some day you can have a resurrection body just like mine!", the clear response would be, "Uh, no thanks."
> If Jesus doesn't ascend, there's nothing to say that he didn't live out an ordinary life and die again later.
Again, thanks for calling me to clarify. I never argued that Jesus didn't ascend, or that some of the apostles didn't know about or believe in his ascension. He did, and the apostles were there (Acts 1.2-3, 6-9) and were eyewitnesses of his ascension. What I said was that it was not pertinent to the theme of their gospel, and so was not included. That doesn't mean it wasn't important or they claimed he didn't ascend.
In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, the abrupt ending without even a resurrection appearance points very strongly to the future character of the kingdom of God. The disciples find themselves suspended between the news of the resurrection and the experience of the risen Lord. Jesus is "on the way," going ahead of the still fearful disciples. And the invitation is still open: Will you follow Him? It's a brilliant ending of tension, fear, openness, and hope. Almost as if we expect the words to appear: "To Be Continued..."
What you have failed to do, in your criticism, is to provide one shred of evidence that the gospels are NOT true, aside from your own opinion. I would ask you to set aside your assumptions, and don't make decisions on anything but evidence. Show me what you got.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by gmw803 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:54 pm
>> Though Mark was not one of the 12, it is strongly thought that he was a follower of Jesus and travelled with him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist). It is even thought by many that he was in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' betrayal (Mark 14.51-52).
I'm not ready to call it fact. But I frequently wonder if "The Gospel According to Mark" is really "The Gospel According to Peter the Apostle who had no literary skills such as reading, so he dictated the account to his son, Mark."
John evidently could write. But he had the vocabulary range of an 8-year old (not a scientific finding). What is truly amazing is that such profound theology can be expressed with such an immature list of words available to him.
I'm not ready to call it fact. But I frequently wonder if "The Gospel According to Mark" is really "The Gospel According to Peter the Apostle who had no literary skills such as reading, so he dictated the account to his son, Mark."
John evidently could write. But he had the vocabulary range of an 8-year old (not a scientific finding). What is truly amazing is that such profound theology can be expressed with such an immature list of words available to him.
- gmw803
Re: Why do you trust the accounts of the four gospels?
by jimwalton » Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:24 pm
While the people of the oral-written culture of the first century were certainly not what we would "illiterate," we must still recognize that someone like Peter (and possibly Mark) were non-literate. By that I mean they were fairly intelligent people (not just walking around snorting, grunting, and dragging their knuckles), but had not been taught the still of reading and writing. Learning to read was a privilege of less than 10% of the population, with a somewhat higher percentage in urban areas and lower percentage in rural areas. It is what John D. Harvey describes as a "rhetorical culture." It was a largely oral culture, with a premium placed on the spoken word, but the written culture of those educated to read and write (such as the scribes) interacted closely with orality, especially in the learning and political capitals. As such, we would highly doubt that Peter knew how to read and write, and that his letters would have been transcribed by another hand than his own. Dictation was the primary means of composition. As for John Mark, we cannot know. And we certainly can't know whether he was a member of Peter's family or not.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest