Biblical Historicity

[bosk1]

Now you're stalling. You don't need to read some special editors' notes, you're sitting in front of the internet, I just gave you a link that enumerated about 20 different translations, 19 of which said unambiguously the same thing.

  Dude, what stalling?  I want to actually pull the books off the shelf and look at them.  That's a great site (I use it all the time), but it only has the text and doesn't have what a physical Bible has:  the bunch of introductory notes that talk about why the translators/publishers made the editorial and tranlation choices they made.  You've raised an interesting point that I intend to evaluate.  I'm not sure I see the problem with that.

And you know very well why I brought up Herod, because it's the other point in time of Jesus' birthday we're discussing.

No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod.  Hence my comment that "I'm not following you."  Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification.  You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify.  I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter.  I'm telling you I don't get it.  Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't.  So either explain it or move on.  If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?

[Vivace]

^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.

Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh.  Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh?  

Um... why should we discredit his opinion because he's actually a person who "studies the bible?" Should we discredit Hawkins then when he discusses the Big Bang because we should get an outside opinion on the matter? Or is this because this guy is a man of faith and you will trust only people outside of that. Who's the biased one? Is this seriously how you look at these people? Wow.

[Vivace]

"A historical genre does not necessarily guarantee historical accuracy or reliability. Nor did the evangelists or their first readers engage in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. These gospels were written 40 to 60 years after Christ and it is generally accepted that they are not eyewitness accounts or even a contemporary account of Jesus's life and teaching. The evangelists did more than compile a notebook of traditions about Jesus. Rather, each shaped the narrative to empahsize particular features of Jesus and his teaching."


In other words, what the Gospels present is a life a Christ told in 4 different manner yet each on building on the exact same foundations. Disprecancies simply come from the notes and scrolls the particular evangelist had. You cannot just openly call the whole Bible wrong because one evangelist add a different idea about Christ's birth over another one. Most people will side with Luke's idea given that Luke was very particular in knowing his details.

Rumborak: it is apparent that you are reading the Bible in a 180 degree turn around than the way I and most Catholics read it. You are demanding that it be 100% perfect in its details and that it be 100% accurate. For this to be the Bible would have to literally been written by God. But more people accept the Bible is written by many many authors and historical accuracy is simply impossible from this fashion. The Bible suffers from human imperfection however one must have faith that the interal connections to God are 100% correct. If for you Christ is not God because two people can't agree on locations, and therefore you must question the rest of his assertations, that's fine, but again, I have faith in the author in presenting the "real" Christ. If that's not good enough then I don't know what else to say in this thread and honestly I don't think I could offer anymore.

Again, arguing historical accuracy is a "good" thing. Allowing it to limit God is a "bad" thing.

[Odysseus]

^^^ please see my reply above to this as I have already covered your opinion on the matter.

Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh.  Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh? 

Um... why should we discredit his opinion because he's actually a person who "studies the bible?" Should we discredit Hawkins then when he discusses the Big Bang because we should get an outside opinion on the matter? Or is this because this guy is a man of faith and you will trust only people outside of that. Who's the biased one? Is this seriously how you look at these people? Wow.

Did you mean Hawking?  Knowledge is provisional, we know that.  The Greeks knew that before Christian theology and the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic.  There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument.  Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith.  I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!

Odysseus, I'll try to find time to respond to some of your other nonsense later, but knock stuff like this off:

Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh.  Not what you'd call an impartial academic opinion though, eh? 

If you can't follow the forum rules and engage in civilized discussion, don't post.

My nonsense, eh?  That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth.  The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here.  A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time.  I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance.  Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it.  That said, it ain't easy.

[Odysseus]

I suggest you go and ask a first century historian. They'll usually remain agnostic and say that we can't verify that christ was God but they wont deny the existance of a man named Jesus who died and then something mysteriously happened to his body.

I have spoken with historians of the period during my studying days. I agree up to a point about the agnostic nature of what we are discussing.  However, not denying it is much different to claiming something as true without evidence.  I don't deny the existence of a man who became known as Jesus, but in the absence of any reliable evidence, I'd say it isn't a good idea to make any lavish claims.  We have clues, but not much that is solid and value-free.

Like I said; Greek was the common tongue. People in the area had been speaking it for the last couple of centuries. Peter wasn't very good with it, so he got someone who was to write what he said.

Nope.  Greek was used among the philosophical classes, not among the peasants in rural Judea.  Aramaic was the common tongue in the area.

Many claims of NT historicity date from the second and third century attempts to create orthodoxy in a disparate and largely underground faith that was struggling against pretty much everyone else to establish itself, and needed coherence in order to survive as a whole entity.  Writers such as Papias and Eusebius were two of the most notable candidates of this work.  Once toleration had been extended to the Christian faith in 312, then they were off and running.  Constantine converted in 320 (I think) and then the Council of Nicea was convened in 325 to decide what was to be accepted as canon and what was to be discarded from the massive range of what passed for orthodoxy in the multitude of proto-Christians sects of the time.  Theocracy, here we come!

I'd like to see your references for where Paul contradicts Jesus.

Jesus told the Jewish crowds that in order to enter the kingdom, they needed to do what God had commanded in the Jewish law. Specifically they needed to carry out the two greatest commandments of the law: love god with all their heart, soul and strength (quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-6) and love their neighbours as themselves (quoting Leviticus 19:18)
"On these two commandments", urged Jesus, "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40)

However.... Paul said, "You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4)

One thing that is interesting is the differences in the various sects in how they viewed Christ.  Some wanted to portray him against the background of his Jewish roots, others wanted a theology that separated him from this, but found themselves derided for starting a religion that had no tradition, hence the move to reinterpret OT scripture and rework it as prophecy geared towards Jesus.  Each author's exegesis will take this into account

a couple of chunks above the one you quoted

Age doesn't have any bearing on historicity.

however manuscript attestation does.

Yes indeed.  Reliable manuscript attestation, not letters of dubious authorship that have been amended over years to suit changes in circumstance.

Nope. Jesus teachings that he was God were inseparable from his ministry. He himself said that he would destroy the temple then rebuild it 3 days later.

He allegedly said that he'd bring on the kingdom of God and didn't.  2000 years later we're still waiting... Do people seriously believe that a bloke built a temple in 3 days?.....

that was just before he ascended and he was talking figuratively
and the Gospel was written alot closer to or even before 70 AD. As the latest of the gospels. There had been a rumour that Jesus would come back before John died but that didn't affect the theology of John....

Most theologians I've read say between 90 and 100CE based on the knowledge that the destruction of the temple took place in 70CE so the story could not have been written earlier.

[Ħ]

On your final point....

Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy.  That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies.  Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.

[Vivace]

the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic. 

That's an opnionate statement and I'm surprised you would back a statement like that. There were plenty of people who came out of Christianity that were rational and logical. Or do you mean that if a person believes in God they no longer can be rational or logical or that Christianity destroyed all hope of rational and logical reasoning that came before? Again, this is false. There was plenty of progress after Christianity that came FROM Christianity itself including Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, etc.

There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument.  Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith.  I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!

Faith is the absense of evidence or fact so if someone said they had absolute fact of a thing, they wouldn't need faith in that thing. If I had 100% proof of Christ and all the mysteries about Christ, then I would no longer have faith in Christ. So for a person to have faith in God then have absolute proof and evidence of God's existance in a contradiction. However you are making a general statement that faith cannot have with it rational reasoning. Again this is an opinion. Faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it.

Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. 

My nonsense, eh?  That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth.  The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here.  A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time.  I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance.  Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it.  That said, it ain't easy.

Again, what does his being a seminarian have any negative impact on the fact the man is an educated scripture expert? Again, who is being the biased one here? They both have pretty much the same type of educational background. the only reason who are labeling his article as biased is because he is a seminarian. Does this mean that you accept only expert opinions just so long as they are not in conflict with your own ideas? It about the only way I can explain your stance on Blomberg. His expertise should have the same credibility as the author to Misquoting Jesus. I give them both the same credibility. I just presented another expert opinion on the same topic. I would love to go back in time, cut and paste that article and change the author as to remove all traces of him being a priest.

[rumborak]

In other words, what the Gospels present is a life a Christ told in 4 different manner yet each on building on the exact same foundations. Disprecancies simply come from the notes and scrolls the particular evangelist had. You cannot just openly call the whole Bible wrong because one evangelist add a different idea about Christ's birth over another one.

Well, the point of the matter is, the nativity discrepancy we were discussing showcased the willingness of the authors to add information to "flesh out" a story they might have received only as a basic fragment. Which however means they got the nativity story from God-knows-where really, clearly not directly from Jesus himself (since then both authors would agree on the point in time).

You are demanding that it be 100% perfect in its details and that it be 100% accurate.

No, not really. The only person in this thread who needs that to be is bosk.
My overarching point really is, in order to really get at what and what not Jesus was, you have to go through the thicket of the Bible with a machete and cut away all the stuff that is suspect. And both the nativity story and the resurrection story are highly suspect.

rumborak

[Vivace]

Well, the point of the matter is, the nativity discrepancy we were discussing showcased the willingness of the authors to add information to "flesh out" a story they might have received only as a basic fragment. Which however means they got the nativity story from God-knows-where really, clearly not directly from Jesus himself (since then both authors would agree on the point in time).

I don't think I should need to repeat myself constantly in this thread.

My overarching point really is, in order to really get at what and what not Jesus was, you have to go through the thicket of the Bible with a machete and cut away all the stuff that is suspect. And both the nativity story and the resurrection story are highly suspect.

Have fun.

[hefdaddy42]

On your final point....

Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy.  That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies.  Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.

Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted?  I don't remember that.

Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe).  If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."

[Ħ]

On your final point....

Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy.  That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies.  Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.

Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted?  I don't remember that.

Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe).  If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."

1 Tim 5:18...there are two cross references.  One is to Deut 25:4, the other is to Lk 10:7.

Something I forgot to mention: not only must we allow time for Luke to be copied and distributed, so that both Paul and Timothy could refer to them from different places, but you also have to allow time for Luke to be recognized as scripture.  Assuming 1 Timothy is authentic, it's given a date of about 65 CE.  Give enough time for the three previous processes, and you can subtract about 10 years.  Of course, this is only relevant if 1 Timothy is indeed authentic.

[hefdaddy42]

Oh, I see.

Well, to me, that's just another piece of evidence in favor of its inauthenticity.  By all accounts, Paul was dead by around 62 CE or so.  Most scholars date Mark to around 70 CE, and since Luke used Mark as a source, he would have to be later than that (although not much later - I would guess around 80 or so).

But hey, that's just me.

[Ħ]

  Yes, I had a feeling it could work either way.

I am reading a book right now, and, coincidentally, they just brought up this issue.  I will totally post it, but I don't know DTF's rules regarding non-DT copyright material...

[Vivace]

On your final point....

Luke is quoted by Paul at least once, to Timothy.  That means both Paul and Timothy must have had copies.  Allow some time for that copying/distributing process and you'll get a date much earlier than 90 CE.

Where in the letters to Timothy is Luke quoted?  I don't remember that.

Also, most critical scholars believe that the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are actually non-Pauline, but written much later and attributed to Paul (an opinion to which I also subscribe).  If this is true (and I feel the evidence is strong that it is), then this doesn't give you a date "much earlier than 90 CE."

Although I don't have this from an "approved" source according to this sub-forum (said with complete sarcasism so put away your Ripley Flame Throwers ) sources I do have place the letter at the time Paul was in prison and that he did write the letter. As of right now from what I can recall it's an even split. There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.

As for the argument of its inauthenticity? I have to ask is this the overall point of the thread? "If the Bible can be proven to have errors in authorship, dates, and anachronisms but yet not one single person has yet to argue anything related to the teachings of Christ and the events related to his passion and therefore we can the Bible a failure" is not a valid argument in my mind in the least. I say that because again you are judging a book that was written through humankind as a book which tells of the revelation of God. If for some reason it is required that we as human beings should be 100% perfect on all accounts when it comes to this book, then I'm sorry, but you've set too high an requirement for humankind.

[Philawallafox]

Oh, I see.

Well, to me, that's just another piece of evidence in favor of its inauthenticity.  By all accounts, Paul was dead by around 62 CE or so.  Most scholars date Mark to around 70 CE, and since Luke used Mark as a source, he would have to be later than that (although not much later - I would guess around 80 or so).

But hey, that's just me.

I'm pretty sure Paul and Petere were killed by Nero after the Great fire of Rome, wasn't that in the 70s?

I think my NT lecturer (and he would agree with my college principle) dates Mark around 55 or 60...Luke/Acts around 65 with Matthew and John close to 70 (possibly very soon after) but I could be wrong. I'm pretty tired and couldn't be bothered to research at the moment.

I think Paul's first letter is commonly dated in the early-mid 50s. and James (being the earliest written) was in the early 40s. The evidence for James being written early is because they think it was before the Council of Jerusalem. (so it predates Galatians) The reason being that he would never have used the language that he did (even though he was talking about a different thing) about Faith and works in the manner that he did after the council (Acts 15)

You know what the interesting thing about all of this is?
The fact that stuff like this wasn't usually commited to written. In that time they were a primarily oral culture. They would memorise huge amounts of information. In that milieu writing stuff like this down in the quantities that the early christians did is actually pretty phenomenal.

[rumborak]

There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.

The thing with "tradition" is, tradition didn't try to create the most likely authorship of the Bible, it tried to create the most consistent one. That's where you get for example things like the ESV comment "can also mean 'before'" from, where it's pretty obvious it doesn't mean "before". It was an obvious attempt at resolving a contradiction under the constraint of inerrancy.
So, I find when trying to judge things like this issue, e.g. Paulian vs. non-Paulian, tradition IMHO is a rather weak argument. The non-Paulian arguments rest on objective measures, e.g. lexical consistency between different documents, and apparently 1 Tim is rather different from documents we know for sure were written by Paul.

rumborak

[Quadrochosis]

I must say, this is definitely one of the best threads I've ever seen on P/R, great job guys!

Overall though I'd say I mostly agree with what Hef has posted. I don't really see any objective reason to believe that the Bible has an infallible authority or anything like that, although both sides are making very good arguments.

[rumborak]

No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod.  Hence my comment that "I'm not following you."  Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification.  You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify.  I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter.  I'm telling you I don't get it.  Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't.  So either explain it or move on.  If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?

I am not being dickish, but you have a habit of playing dumb in certain types of discussions, you've done that before.
I mean seriously; we're discussing big and wide that Matthew and Luke place Jesus' birthday under different emperors; when I then say that seemingly Luke and Matthew can't agree on Jesus' age, you claim you don't know what I'm referring to. Then, just a few posts down the thread, you claim to now know why I would bring up Herod, when Herod is one of the two emperors mentioned in the Lk and Mt passages, the very two passages we're discussing.
Ok, I will assume this is due to some misunderstanding between the two of us. But, you do have that habit.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Although I don't have this from an "approved" source according to this sub-forum (said with complete sarcasism so put away your Ripley Flame Throwers ) sources I do have place the letter at the time Paul was in prison and that he did write the letter. As of right now from what I can recall it's an even split. There are good arguments against Paul and their are good arguments for Paul. No one at this time can be certain with this, but as of right now, without a firm argument to rest on, tradition still places the letter as authored by Paul.

Of course it isn't a unanimous view.  But most critical scholars agree that the Pastorals are non-Pauline.

As for the argument of its inauthenticity? I have to ask is this the overall point of the thread?

I think it falls into the general purveyance of this thread.

"If the Bible can be proven to have errors in authorship, dates, and anachronisms but yet not one single person has yet to argue anything related to the teachings of Christ and the events related to his passion and therefore we can the Bible a failure" is not a valid argument in my mind in the least.

It isn't one for me, either.  I would never dream of calling the Bible a failure.  I just don't think that it's text is divinely inspired.

I say that because again you are judging a book that was written through humankind as a book which tells of the revelation of God. If for some reason it is required that we as human beings should be 100% perfect on all accounts when it comes to this book, then I'm sorry, but you've set too high an requirement for humankind.

No, I'm just saying that we should make the best judgements about the text and what it says that we can.  If we are saying that something is authoritative from a doctrinal standpoint because it was included in the Bible because the ancients thought it was written by Apostle X, but we now have evidence that that document was not in fact written by Apostle X, then some debate about its doctrinal authority is not only allowed, but is necessary.

[ack44]

Odysseus is kicking some serious butt in this thread.

[Ħ]

Of course it isn't a unanimous view.  But most critical scholars agree that the Pastorals are non-Pauline.

You keep referring to this point.  I would like to see what you've seen that has led you to this conclusion.

It isn't one for me, either.  I would never dream of calling the Bible a failure.  I just don't think that it's text is divinely inspired.

Jesus endorsed the Bible himself.  Do you need a better reason?

He quotes it constantly.  He understands which prophecies he is supposed to fulfill, and at what time he needs to fulfill them.  He acknowledges the division of the Tanakh into the law, the prophets, and the writings.  He even endorses Adam and Eve, the flood, the burning bush, Sodom and Gamorra, Daniel, and Jonah and the whale.

I'm not saying that historical evidence demands inspiration, because it doesn't.  History will lead you to Jesus, though, and his endorsement of Scripture will lead to a belief in inspiration.

When you set aside doctrinal understanding of the word of God when you examine it yourself, you think as the heathen do.  You use logic--but human logic.  I need not remind you that filled with the discerning power of the Holy Spirit.  From a brother to a brother, I think you are neglecting a part of your godly capacity, stooping yourself to a level lower than you really are...

[Ħ]

And seeing as Vivace and hefdaddy, who are both believers, are dominating the spotlight, I decided against using a PM.  But keep in mind that my post is not directed toward anyone that's not a believer, so go ahead and ignore it.

[bosk1]

No, I don't know very well why you brought up Herod.  Hence my comment that "I'm not following you."  Look, this is about the third or fourth time in the discussion I've pointed out that I don't understand a point of yours and asked for clarification.  You can clarify or not, but I don't get why you're suddenly becoming accusatory when I'm telling you I don't follow your logic and ask you to please clarify.  I don't know whether you're not communicating the message properly, or I'm not receiving it properly, but frankly, that doesn't matter.  I'm telling you I don't get it.  Whatever the reasons is that I don't get it, I don't.  So either explain it or move on.  If you're just doing to be dickish when I'm telling you I don't get your point, why bother having the discussion?

I am not being dickish, but you have a habit of playing dumb in certain types of discussions, you've done that before.
I mean seriously; we're discussing big and wide that Matthew and Luke place Jesus' birthday under different emperors; when I then say that seemingly Luke and Matthew can't agree on Jesus' age, you claim you don't know what I'm referring to. Then, just a few posts down the thread, you claim to now know why I would bring up Herod, when Herod is one of the two emperors mentioned in the Lk and Mt passages, the very two passages we're discussing.
Ok, I will assume this is due to some misunderstanding between the two of us. But, you do have that habit.

rumborak

I know we're comparing two passages, once of which (Matthew) discusses Herod.  What I'm saying is that bringing Herod up in your last post did not make sense to me.  I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in that post, that's all. 

Not sure what translation you are using, but many translate that passage:  "This was the registration before..."

NIV: "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"
Luther: "und geschah zu der Zeit, da Cyrenius Landpfleger von Syrien war" ("during which Cyenius...")
New International Version (UK): "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"

The problem with that post is that you are looking at various translations, not the original text.  And while we are often forced to rely on translations, sometimes we have to go beyond them and look at the original text. 

I did a bit of research over the weekend, and found a couple of plausiable explanations for the Luke passage (as well as some that do not seem plausible that I am not going to bother with).  One is the translation issue.  Almost every reliable modern translation translates the passage as "during" (or some equivalent).  But that appears to simply be an assumption that just stuck, as there is no modifier in the text that demands that it be "during," rather than "before."  I found no clues in the translators' notes in any of the editions I have for any of the Bibles in my house (for the record, I primarily use ESV and NKJV, but I also have some others I use for reference, such as NIV, NASB, NRSV, and even KJV).  There is a note in my NRSV Oxford Bible (rumby, this is the version generally used for study in universities) that also mentions this.  I also looked at the original Greek to verify that there is indeed no modifier and looked at some secondary sources that discussed the issue.  In short, the original text and the anslysis thereof supports that the "during" could very well be a translation error that has stuck through tradition. 

The second explanation I will mention is something that I also alluded to earlier, which is that there is evidence Quirinius served  government post in Syria prior to the legate position GP referred to in 6 A.D. that, chronologically, would have been during Herod's reign. 

If you like, I will type excerpts from the sources I looked at.  I had hoped to do that over the weekend, but as often happens, just got busy with stuff with the kids (and other stuff that occupies my time) and didn't get to it.

[Odysseus]

the quest for 'certainty', ironically based on myth and magic put an end to much of the progress brought through rationalism and logic.

That's an opnionate statement and I'm surprised you would back a statement like that. There were plenty of people who came out of Christianity that were rational and logical. Or do you mean that if a person believes in God they no longer can be rational or logical or that Christianity destroyed all hope of rational and logical reasoning that came before? Again, this is false. There was plenty of progress after Christianity that came FROM Christianity itself including Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, etc.

I don't how you can say that it is an opinionated statement when history backs it up.  The introduction of Christianity led to a substantial slowing of the rate of progress to an almost standstill in comparison. 

It ain't black and white and shouldn't be taken as such.  What I'm saying is that after the introduction of Christianity as the official religion of Rome, there was a marked move away from the rationalism and reasoned logic that was a hallmark of the Greek world in the previous half century or so.  This was because the religion was partly taken on board to give an increasingly fragmented Roman empire a sense of certainty.  For a long time, the idea of the heavens and the Gods within reflected the status quo of human life at the time - the prior pantheons of Gods were often portrayed with the very human characteristics of anger, jealousy and suchlike.  The new form of monotheism lent certainty and divine weight to imperial rule as well as providing the church with state patronage to ensure its reliance on the Emperor for cash and thus compliance with the Emperor's wishes with regard to canon.
Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm.  Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term.  Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.

Nobody has said that Christians can't be rational and logical, so I don't understand why you are saying it.  Look at Darwin and Mendel! :-)   We should also be thankful for some of the Greek works that were actively saved by Christian monks too.  That said, saving prior works isn't the same thing as building on them, but it was a good thing they did preserve stuff.

 

There is absolutley nothing wrong with being a man of faith as long as the man makes a distinction between his faith and what is provable through evidence and rational argument.  Given the amount of shysters religion has produced over the years, I'm wary of people who try and combine fact and faith.  I try to be even handed, but I do admit to falling off the fence occasionally!

Faith is the absense of evidence or fact so if someone said they had absolute fact of a thing, they wouldn't need faith in that thing. If I had 100% proof of Christ and all the mysteries about Christ, then I would no longer have faith in Christ. So for a person to have faith in God then have absolute proof and evidence of God's existance in a contradiction. However you are making a general statement that faith cannot have with it rational reasoning. Again this is an opinion. Faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it.

Faith is belief without proof. I think we're agreed on that, yes?  And if there was primary evidence for the proposition then we wouldn't need faith.  I think we agree on that too, yes?
I'm not sure about the part where faith can have a basis of rational logic behind it - I'm guessing you mean that there can be certain pointers towards the truth of a proposition - maybe that some people wrote stories or letters about a man whom they said was the son of God.  So far, so good.. I'm still with you.  But.... this isn't what I would call primary evidence as such.  A letter or piece of text (let's say the Gospel of John) may say that the man Jesus was divine. 
Fine.  But...

1  -  as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2  -  none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3  -  none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4  -  theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.

So, yes, we can use the John text as a pointer, just like the other gospels, and they are important as a form of evidence, but given the lack of continuity in the content and the apparent lack of authenticity with regard to authorship then we would be foolish to make concrete decisions without further proof.

You could say that we should apply these same criteria to the rest of history and you would be exactly right.  As I understand it there are certain people in history whose very existence is starting to be thrown into doubt.  Such is the provisional nature of knowledge.

So I guess we agree up to a point, but I would say that while certain things can point in a certain direction, religions still rely on a 'leap of faith' (evidence-free, like you said) to establish certain propositions.  I think we're largely on the same page here.

Yes, the review by the butthurt fundie is good for a laugh. 

My nonsense, eh?  That's a little strong from someone who accepts evidence-free propositions as truth.  The butthurt fundie' quote was alluding to Mr. Blomberg, not anyone on here.  A brief search on Mr. Blomberg reveals the words 'conservative' and 'evangelical' in tandem much of the time.  I don't doubt his credentials in having studied scripture, but given his leanings and writing on behalf on Denver Seminary, his writing is likely to be in support of his take on theology, not an impartial academic stance.  Personally, I don't really care what he believes, I'm just interested in historical truth, inasmuch as we can achieve it.  That said, it ain't easy.

Again, what does his being a seminarian have any negative impact on the fact the man is an educated scripture expert? Again, who is being the biased one here? They both have pretty much the same type of educational background. the only reason who are labeling his article as biased is because he is a seminarian. Does this mean that you accept only expert opinions just so long as they are not in conflict with your own ideas? It about the only way I can explain your stance on Blomberg. His expertise should have the same credibility as the author to Misquoting Jesus. I give them both the same credibility. I just presented another expert opinion on the same topic. I would love to go back in time, cut and paste that article and change the author as to remove all traces of him being a priest.

I'm not criticising Blomberg's credentials with regard to his knowledge of scripture, I'm questioning his integrity with regard to what he is doing with his knowledge.  Not all students of scripture are impartial in what they write about for public consumption.
Blomberg is a known conservative evangelical and as such is an advocate of biblical authority and biblical inerrancy - it comes with the territory.  So to answer your question above, I'm sure Blomberg is an expert in his field, but I am wary of 'expert opinions' that come from an author who is openly a conservative evangelist and who by definition advocates biblical authority and inerrancy.  His is not a value-free and impartial stance - that is why I question him - his interpretations are likely to be coloured by his theological leanings.  The letters after his name don't preclude him from playing to the gallery.  It doesn't matter what tradition or leanings someone has - they should not be taken seriously unless they can divorce their faith from their work IMO.
Most bible studies I'v eread have been carried out by Christian and Jewish theologians who have wanted to get closer to the word of god, and have chosen to do this through academic study.  For the most part they have done a damn fine job, and have passed on their findings with an impartiality that ought to shame some of the others.  Without the work of these theologians of high integrity we would still be largely in the dark with regard to the bible.  Long may it continue - it's a fascinating field of study.

[Philawallafox]

I think you're mistaken Odysseus, and if you'll permit me I'll outline why in a few points.

I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312. I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.

They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.

Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm.  Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term.  Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.

Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.

1  -  as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2  -  none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3  -  none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4  -  theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.

1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.

[Adami]

It's not quite fair for you to sum up greek morality as pedophelia, murding christians and letting babies die, unless you want to also sum up christian morality as murder jews and muslims, raping young boys and creating war all over the world.

Obviously neither are accurate in the slightest bit.

[Ħ]

1  -  as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2  -  none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3  -  none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4  -  theologians say that the texts hav ebeen amended over the years to refect changes in belief.

1 -  By this, I assume you are drawing a distinction between John the apostle and John the elder.  Yes, it is possible that the two are different, and we have a bit of evidence for that, but it is also quite possible that they are the same figure.  In any event, I can't see how it makes a difference.  Mark and Luke weren't apostles either.  And plenty of people followed Jesus during his earthly ministry--John the elder could easily have been one of them.

2 -  John is surely the most obvious in displaying Jesus as God.  However, you still do find claims in the Synoptics, specifically in the titles Jesus gives himself.  When Jesus walks on water in Mat 14:22-33 and Mk 6:45-52 he refers to himself as "I AM", a reference to God's name in Ex 3:14.  Jesus also calls himself the "Son of Man", referring to Dan 7:13-14.  In addition, Jesus allows himself to act as only God would, by claiming to have the power to forgive and judge, as well as accept being worshiped.  If he was just another messenger from God, he certainly would have corrected his worshipers, much as the angel did in Revelation when John worshiped the angel.

3 - The claim that most theologians believe that the gospels weren't authentic ("authentic" = written by who they are attributed to) is simply not true.  Perhaps many secular scholars say this, but most believing theologians do hold the view that at least the synoptics were authentic.  Not only that, but inauthenticity itself is also unlikely.  For one, we see these names attributed to the gospels as early as AD 125 in Papias's writings.  Also, if inauthentic, Mark and Luke would have been unlikely candidates, since they weren't apostles, and obscure figures at that.  And Matthew was unpopular as a tax collector.  If inauthentic, you should see names like The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, and The Gospel of Thomas.  Yes, I know those three examples "exist" but that's a separate issue.  My point is that you have to pull a number of historical strings to come up with the idea that the authors weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

4 - This is actually true.  Most do accept that the Bible has been changed.  However, you leave out the fact that most theologians don't think that the omissions/additions affect any major doctrine.  Two examples.  First, Mk 16:9-20.  All details regarding the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, the "Great Commission," water baptism, and signs can be found elsewhere.  Second, 1 Jn 5:7, the famous verse on the "Trinity".  The "Trinity" can be demonstrated in a number of places outside of this verse, so it's being there or not doesn't really change anything.

[Odysseus]

I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312.

I didn't say it did. I said it slowed down in comparison to the rate at which it had gone before, with regard to science and philosophy.  Compare this with the continuation in progress of the Arab areas that had been exposed to Greek thought.  Not surprisingly, this progress was brought to a swift halt by the arrival of monotheism too.

I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.

I wouldn't have said that early church utilised much in the way of rational thought at all.  Witness the amount of squabbling over the Nicene orthodoxy versus Arianism.  It is unwise to say that Christian thought suddenly dropped into place over night - much continued as it had been before, as Constantine needed the support of the growing Christian population as well as the support of the pagans, so he was very careful not to tread on too many toes.  Couple that with imperial patronage of the Christian church and you end up with the situation where the emperor had a strong hand in deciding the direction of doctrine to suit his own ends, because the church was reliant on him for financial support as well as toleration.
As for paedophilia, you know as well as I do that the church has had a long and sordid history of turning a blind eye to the clergy boffing the kids, and it's still going on today, so a cheap effort at playing to the gallery like that is bound to turn round and bite you in the ass.

They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.

They started to try and shoehorn their everyday world into the theology of the new testament.  I wouldn't say that is a case of reasoned logic, more an exercise in futility, but fair play to them for giving it a go.  It is important to look at it through the eyes of the times, but that doesn't mean we should idealize.  For example, Ptolemy was a wizard with mathematics and astronomy, but basic assumptions regarding the earth being the centre of the universe were wrong, and so therefore were his results, despite the awesome calculations he made to describe the movement of the stars and suchlike, but you can't take anything away from the guy for his efforts.
Similarly, the early church, in true religious style took a top-down approach starting with the literal truth of the bible - anything that didn't fit in was either bent so it did fit in or jettisoned as heresy.  Rational thought? Not much, by our standards.

Take the formulation of the Nicene creed that eventually became doctrine - that is, the doctrine that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are of one substance.  Arius and his followers, as well as many others had always believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, and backed this up with scripture, correctly pointing out that scripture depicts Jesus as being separate and subordinate to God - "My god, why have you forsaken me etc etc..."  It took a hell of a lot of exegetic contortion to get the Nicene Creed past this rather large hurdle, and a lot of manoevring regarding the terms 'homooussios' and 'homoiousios'.  So it would seem that scripture was also subject to some 'creative exegesis' in the service of doctrine too!  Understandable from the viewpoint of some of the church fathers at the time who were concerned to make their orthodoxy palatable to the emperor, but rational?.... hmmm....

Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm.  Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term.  Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.

Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.

Yup, when church and state became inextricable.

1  -  as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2  -  none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3  -  none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4  -  theologians say that the texts have been amended over the years to refect changes in belief.

This was an example to illustrate a point in my previous post, not necessarily a point in itself. However...

1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.

1 - The jury is still out, apparently.  It is thought that it was written in his name by an anonymous author, much like the others.   Exeter University, and subsequent study for my own interest.
2 - Gospel accounts have been reworked over time in the early years to reflect church doctrine and prevailing thought.  Any NT scholar who reads widely is aware of this.
3 - No they aren't - this outlook is only taken by those who want to bend reality into their beliefs.  However, if that's how you want to operate, feel free.  Your call, bud.  I read the works of Christian and Jewish scholars who are interested in discovering as much historical truth as possible, without the intellectually dishonest practice of cramming it into a rigid pre-existing belief system.
4 - ...Because they don't share your small-minded fundamentalism perchance? You have posted some good stuff in this thread. I'm strangely disappointed with this last effort....

[Odysseus]

It's interesting that Christians mention secular theologians as if they have an agenda contrary to yours.  Do you seriously believe that every secular theologian is an anti-Christian theologian? If so, that is quite some persecution complex you've got there.  There are many, many Christian scholars that strive to reach historical truth about the bible, and all credit to them.  Much of it has been sheer brilliance and a magnificent contribution to the field of study.  Similarly there are many many secular theologians that strive for the same.  What makes you think that secular theologians are incapable of rational inquiry? Is your position that precarious in your view?
However, there exist a number of charlatans that colour their 'research' (and I use the term loosely!) with their pre-existing assumptions on what the outcome will be.  This goes for Christians and anti-Christian scholars alike, and both should be derided on the same grounds - intellectual dishonesty.

Let's talk New Testament historicity with regard to the resurrection.  Bear in mind that this is one of the most crucial, if not THE most crucial occasion in Christian theology and of course in the lives of the gospel writers - this is some of the stuff that is the foundation of western theology for hundreds of years to come.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really ought to have been singing from the same hymn sheet with regard to what happened because they were supposedly there for much of it.

So, bearing this in mind, if we are to believe that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John themsleves, there really ought to be some continuity in their accounts. They were there, right?   It is the most momentous event in their lives.  They wouldn't forget what happened.... would they?

Let's have a look...

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)


Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Put simply, it is difficult to accept that the gospels were written by the alleged authors themselves when there are so many discrepancies in their accounts. And these are just the resurrection accounts!  
New Testament literal historicity?  Good luck.....
I'd say the best you can hope for is that the gospels, such as they are, may represent the beliefs and emphases of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but were passed own through oral tradition, losing something along the way, and eventually put in writing by others who wrote in that author's name to lend it more authenticity than it might otherwise have been granted.  How else would such errata and inconsistencies have crept in, and why were the accounts so different in simple details?

I'd say faith is the better game plan....

[Ħ]

You sure spent a lot of time on that.

First of all, you seem more interested in disproving Biblical claims to infallible inspiration.  There are answers to all those things you brought up, but the issue we are talking about is historicity--did the historical events happen?  

With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details.  You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source.  That's unfair.

Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.

"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.  People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."

To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.

[rumborak]

"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...

I have an issue with this statement. What he is essentially saying is "given the mode of transmission and how long this is ago, we could possibly only ever be 30% sure. Thus, 30% is now the new de facto truth standard."
With the same argument I could create an elaborate story around two Neanderthal's love affair, but since we can only ever know so much about the circumstance of Neanderthals, the spurious evidence I have is now good enough to declare the story true.

If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.  People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...

That's what's happening though, right? Doesn't one gospel even mistranslate an idiom that made sense in the other gospel's original language?

rumborak

[Ħ]

I have an issue with this statement. What he is essentially saying is "given the mode of transmission and how long this is ago, we could possibly only ever be 30% sure. Thus, 30% is now the new de facto truth standard."
With the same argument I could create an elaborate story around two Neanderthal's love affair, but since we can only ever know so much about the circumstance of Neanderthals, the spurious evidence I have is now good enough to declare the story true.

He's not saying that we accept ancient accounts as automatic truth.  I don't know where you got that idea.  All that he is saying is that we don't discount material that appears to contradict in minor ways, a common claim of Bible critics.

That's what's happening though, right? Doesn't one gospel even mistranslate an idiom that made sense in the other gospel's original language?

That's what "they" say.  Frankly, I don't see why that's a valid hypothesis.  The Synoptics all contain very similar information.  Why release three copies of the same story, when the same could have been accomplished by one?  What would be the motive?  That would be foolish of them.  If they supposedly copied each other, that would greatly decrease the number of contradictions we see.  If they wanted to make amendments/corrections to the one they copied off of, they would have simply done so, not rewrite an entire narrative.

And John is generally agreed to have been a complete outside source from the Synoptics, so that's not even in the picture.

It's funny how some of you claim that the gospels originated from passed down oral tradition, and some of you claim that the gospels originated from a single written source that spread out.  Two completely opposite things.

The notion is that four guys that followed around a person named Jesus, and later recorded four biographies as independent sources from their own individual perspective, perhaps using the others for reference occasionally, is the most likely scenario that fits snugly into the information that we know.

[Philawallafox]

I think you'll find that rational thought didn't stop in 312.

I didn't say it did. I said it slowed down in comparison to the rate at which it had gone before, with regard to science and philosophy.  Compare this with the continuation in progress of the Arab areas that had been exposed to Greek thought.  Not surprisingly, this progress was brought to a swift halt by the arrival of monotheism too.

i'm pretty sure arabic scholarship took off after the introduction of islam. up to that point it had been mostky poetry if I remember correctly.

I think you'll find that the rational thought was simply aimed in a different direction. Yes there was a move away from greek philosophy (the same philosophy that brought us such thoughts as stoicism, gnosticism and Manichaeism(sp?)) to Christianity. It moved away from Greek morals (such morals that brought us paedophilia, use of Christians as torches and leaving unwanted babies outside to die of exposure) to Christian morals.

I wouldn't have said that early church utilised much in the way of rational thought at all.  Witness the amount of squabbling over the Nicene orthodoxy versus Arianism.  It is unwise to say that Christian thought suddenly dropped into place over night - much continued as it had been before, as Constantine needed the support of the growing Christian population as well as the support of the pagans, so he was very careful not to tread on too many toes.  Couple that with imperial patronage of the Christian church and you end up with the situation where the emperor had a strong hand in deciding the direction of doctrine to suit his own ends, because the church was reliant on him for financial support as well as toleration.
As for paedophilia, you know as well as I do that the church has had a long and sordid history of turning a blind eye to the clergy boffing the kids, and it's still going on today, so a cheap effort at playing to the gallery like that is bound to turn round and bite you in the ass.

There was Squabbling because Arius exposed his heresy by calling another priest a heretic. That combined with him being very good at reducing complex doctrines into fortune cookie statements made his movement strong with the common people.

i'm not saying that Christian thought dropped into place overnight. I'm just saying that after 312 we went from trying to survive and not really having alot of time to put too much thought into theology outside of "we're not evil, please stop killing us" to "ok we can breathe now, let's figure out what the bible actually says"

As for Paedophilia, I'm not denying that the Roman church (I don't think it's as popular among protestants) has weaknesses but The Roman church at least recognises it as Amoral. The greeks celebrated Paedophilia. or at least weren't ashamed of it.

They started to apply this reasoned logic to the bible. They applied their study of the world around them to the bible. They went from general revelation (creation, an idea the greeks held to I believe, I could be wrong) to the specific revelation of the Bible. They lent their minds to understanding this complicated text. They lent themselves to figuring out how it all fits together, how the trinitarian God works, how Christ was God and man etc. This was not an abandonement of logic and reason. Merely a transfer of the application.

They started to try and shoehorn their everyday world into the theology of the new testament.  I wouldn't say that is a case of reasoned logic, more an exercise in futility, but fair play to them for giving it a go.  It is important to look at it through the eyes of the times, but that doesn't mean we should idealize.  For example, Ptolemy was a wizard with mathematics and astronomy, but basic assumptions regarding the earth being the centre of the universe were wrong, and so therefore were his results, despite the awesome calculations he made to describe the movement of the stars and suchlike, but you can't take anything away from the guy for his efforts.
Similarly, the early church, in true religious style took a top-down approach starting with the literal truth of the bible - anything that didn't fit in was either bent so it did fit in or jettisoned as heresy.  Rational thought? Not much, by our standards.

Well, There's no point keeping stuff that's heresy. If it's a lie why give it a megaphone with canonisation?

Take the formulation of the Nicene creed that eventually became doctrine - that is, the doctrine that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are of one substance.  Arius and his followers, as well as many others had always believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, and backed this up with scripture, correctly pointing out that scripture depicts Jesus as being separate and subordinate to God - "My god, why have you forsaken me etc etc..."  It took a hell of a lot of exegetic contortion to get the Nicene Creed past this rather large hurdle, and a lot of manoevring regarding the terms 'homooussios' and 'homoiousios'.  So it would seem that scripture was also subject to some 'creative exegesis' in the service of doctrine too!  Understandable from the viewpoint of some of the church fathers at the time who were concerned to make their orthodoxy palatable to the emperor, but rational?.... hmmm....

argh. The doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without having to trace the History of it. Is it alright if we stick to 1+1+1=1?

Arius actually preached that "once the son was not" This is of course not what the bible says so his teaching became anathema. I'm not sure what sort of creative exegesis there is involved in coming to that conclusion.

on the note of making it palatable, I think you'll find that Constantine's mother may have been a supporter of Arius. Combine that with the sheer complexity of the doctrine of the trinity and I think you'll believe me when I say that the church was not there for constantine.

Many libraries were sacked in the years following Christianity, and use of Greek-inspired rationalism was frowned upon and regarded as antithetical to the notion of an all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer and whose will the lowly humans should cower in front of, rather than seek knowledge of that which should be God's realm.  Questioning the world whrough science and logic became heresy, for want of a better term.  Again, I will reiterate that it didn't happen all the time absolutely everywhere, but it was a marked halt in progress.

Sometimes this was true. Others it wasn't. Unfortunately the dark ages were so called for a purpose when the Roman Church got powermad.

Yup, when church and state became inextricable.

When either church or state has too much power. Communism for example.

1  -  as far as we know, the gospel of John wasn't written by the John who was supposed to be a companion of Jesus.
2  -  none of the other gospels in canon say that Jesus was divine.
3  -  none of the other gospels are held by most theologians to be written by who they were supposed to be written.
4  -  theologians say that the texts have been amended over the years to refect changes in belief.

This was an example to illustrate a point in my previous post, not necessarily a point in itself. However...

1 - As far as i know, He did. Where do you get your knowledge from?
2 - All of them did in fact. In the earliest gospel (Mk) Jesus himself claims divinity.
3 - Yes they are. what sort of theologians are you quoting?
4 - Those theologians are idiots.

1 - The jury is still out, apparently.  It is thought that it was written in his name by an anonymous author, much like the others.   Exeter University, and subsequent study for my own interest.
2 - Gospel accounts have been reworked over time in the early years to reflect church doctrine and prevailing thought.  Any NT scholar who reads widely is aware of this.
3 - No they aren't - this outlook is only taken by those who want to bend reality into their beliefs.  However, if that's how you want to operate, feel free.  Your call, bud.  I read the works of Christian and Jewish scholars who are interested in discovering as much historical truth as possible, without the intellectually dishonest practice of cramming it into a rigid pre-existing belief system.
4 - ...Because they don't share your small-minded fundamentalism perchance? You have posted some good stuff in this thread. I'm strangely disappointed with this last effort....

1 - I'm sorry, I have little regard for critical scholars. Instead of looking for the theological unity of the text, they try to find disunities and construct theologies from that. I think that it was written close enough to John's lifetime that tere doesn't need to be any reason to doubt that he wrote it. people who date it later will usually have an ulterior motive for that.
2- this is why we look for the oldest manuscripts we can find, then we compare and contrast them with the manuscripts that we have. I think you'll find that Christian manuscripts have been more accurately copied than any other manuscripts out there from that general milieu
3 - My NT lecturer says that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rules of biblical interpretation read thus: The Bible interprets itself he's a smart guy He has a Doctorate in physics and a Masters in theology. Wasn't always a Christian either. I don't think you'll find him cramming what the bible says into a pre existing idea. If he did he'd have stayed a non christian don't you think?
4 - The reason I don't regard your sources very highly is that they do exactly what you're accusing me of. They're reading the bible assuming something beforehand and lo and behold they're finding exactly what they're looking for.

[/quote]

[Philawallafox]

I don't have much to add to BrotherH's posts except to say that most of the passages you quoted are discrepant only in semantics or with unimportant matters. Does it really matter which women were recorded as going to the tomb and in which part of the dawn it was? it was dawn, some women went including Mary Magdalene. Other gospels obviously didn't want to introduce new characters at the end.

[hefdaddy42]

With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details.  You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source.  That's unfair.

Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.

"The gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them...If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.  People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting...There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."

To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.

I do judge the Bible against other ancient sources, by the same standards.  I can do that because I don't think it was "written" by God, just like none of the other ancient sources.  But if you believe that it WAS written by God, then obviously it should be able to stand up to higher standards.  There shouldn't be that many discrepancies.  In fact, there shouldn't be ANY discrepancies, and there would be no need for multiple gospels in the first place.