Why should we believe the gospels?

[Voyage 34]

Is it? I mean, is Paul considered to be of such high stature that he can override the teachings of the key prophet, Jesus?

rumborak

Theologically speaking, yes.  Paul's words are just as inspired and perfect as Jesus's.  (confined to Paul's canonical letters, of course)

Paul's stature means nothing if he is writing the inspired words of God.

What makes those letters canonical again?

[bosk1]

I can't speak for BrotherH, but my response would be:
Primarily, (1) they were accepted as such by the earliest Christians, and (2) Peter the apostle endorses and refers to Paul's writings as scripture.  Secondarily, they are consistent with other NT scripture.

[hefdaddy42]

I'll just say that I am somewhere between WW and rumby.

[j]

I can't speak for BrotherH, but my response would be:
Primarily, (1) they were accepted as such by the earliest Christians, and (2) Peter the apostle endorses and refers to Paul's writings as scripture.  Secondarily, they are consistent with other NT scripture.

2 and I think 1 are both true, but what do you mean they are "consistent with other NT scripture"?

-J

[Ħ]

I can't speak for BrotherH, but my response would be:
Primarily, (1) they were accepted as such by the earliest Christians, and (2) Peter the apostle endorses and refers to Paul's writings as scripture.  Secondarily, they are consistent with other NT scripture.

Pretty much this, especially leaning on point (2).  But I'd like to add a point 3: Paul often considered himself to be writing Scripture...I am super tired, but there's a verse I think near the end of 1 Cor that says "let the prophets confirm that I speak from the Lord" (that's a paraphrase...someone wanna help me out here?)  I recall other examples but I can't think of any. 

The Old Testament is easy, because you can confirm that it is scripture based on the New Testament references.  I think only 5 OT are never quoted or referred to (might be off a little bit).  The New Testament is trickier since you don't have a "Third Testament" that uses the NT as it's reference.  So you have to look within the NT to figure out what is Scripture.  What's really amazing is that certain books were considered Scripture even during their authors' lifetimes!  For example, Paul quotes Luke and calls it Scripture.  And plus, like bosk mentioned, Peter considers Paul's writings as Scripture.

[bosk1]

I'm trying to find something in your post to disagree with just because you said it, but I can't, so...yeah.

[Ħ]

Keep lookin, I'm sure you'll find something.

[bosk1]

  No, it's actually a really good point.

[Ħ]

 

....

Aight, I'm going to bed.

[William Wallace]

I'm not willing to put it down to difference of interpretation. A lot of Ehrman's arguments rest on silly assumptions. He calls variants between gospel accounts contradictions, when in reality they're easily answered by providing proper context.

Ach, come on, WW, as much as you crusade on Ehrman to making sweeping statements, you're doing the same here. Isn't the different order of sequences between John and the other gospels problematic? Isn't the different genealogy of Jesus problematic?
Ehrman makes the point that writers inserted information they deemed necessary, for various reasons. That is the overall point of the book, and to brush away those often striking differences is disingenuous to the purpose.

The difference in sequence isn't a problem unless it effects essential doctrines, and none of Ehrman's examples do. Everybody knows that the text has been altered through the centuries. Big deal. But we have a pretty reliable method for documenting the changes and reconstructing what autographs probably recorded. That fact puts the breaks on your argument in hurry.

What I'm doing is not brushing away striking differences. Scholars understand that ancient literature like the gospels is constructed much differently than modern literature. The effort to line up the gospels side by side and find variations between them ignores that important point and ignores the utility of textual criticism. In short, it's an ill-informed atheist discussion group argument, which is why Misquoting Jesus is so disappointing.

"Writers from the first century didn't care as much about precise order of events as we do today". That's a pretty hefty statement, right there. What did they care about then? That is, what can be assumed to be correct? Was the message important? Was the persuasion of the recipient deemed most important?

rumborak

It's also a true statement. Precision in written language (e.g. recording exact times, dates, other peripheral details) wasn't essential in the first and second centuries. In the case of ancient biographies like the gospels, material was often arranged topically. So it shouldn't be surprising that we find slight inconsistencies between the gospels. Nobody at the time saw them as preventing the essential message from being reliably transmitted. Our changing literary standards have led some modern critics to invent problems where there aren't any.

[rumborak]

Eh. To me it's pretty obvious that due to the nature of the document, the standards applied to it are very different and a lot of issues just get swept under the rug. If we were talking about any other document with the same issues it would get plain laughed at by everybody.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Eh. To me it's pretty obvious that due to the nature of the document, the standards applied to it are very different and a lot of issues just get swept under the rug. If we were talking about any other document with the same issues it would get plain laughed at by everybody.

rumborak

That's completely wrong. The same standards are applied to other texts from the same period. But I would suggest that the Bible has been subject to more intense scrutiny because of the nature of the claims contained therein. I mean, there aren't thousands of websites dedicated to refuting the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals.

[hefdaddy42]

Paul quotes Luke and calls it Scripture. 

I don't think so.  Book, chapter, verse?

[Ħ]

Paul quotes Luke and calls it Scripture. 

I don't think so.  Book, chapter, verse?

I figured you might speak up, cause I know you disagree with Paul's authorship of 1 Timothy.  But it doesn't really affect those three points, so...

[rumborak]

That's completely wrong. The same standards are applied to other texts from the same period. But I would suggest that the Bible has been subject to more intense scrutiny because of the nature of the claims contained therein. I mean, there aren't thousands of websites dedicated to refuting the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals.

Obviously, because nobody could care less about the exact historicity of Annals other than a few historians. But here's another aspect: Tacitus' motivation to write Annals is clear (a history document), and one has a good estimate of whatever bias he put in. For example, Tacitus will not have been too critical towards the Roman Empire, but might have been disparaging towards outside cultures. So, one has to bracket out the aspects of clear bias when reading a document.
The Bible has many many authors (definitely many more than it internally claims), all of which had different motivations and biases. Seeing the Bible as a document of uniform historicity is ridiculous. For example, the synoptic gospels are obviously much closer to historical accuracy than John is. And John frankly reads like a sale pitch for Jesus; his main motivation is to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus. The historicity takes a backseat, which is visible from the fact that he moves around the order of things, probably because he thought it makes for more compelling reading.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Just to make sure I understand:  You question the historicity of John simply because (1) his main motivation is to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus, and (2) he does not necessarily relate events in chronological order, correct?

[Voyage 34]

That's completely wrong. The same standards are applied to other texts from the same period. But I would suggest that the Bible has been subject to more intense scrutiny because of the nature of the claims contained therein. I mean, there aren't thousands of websites dedicated to refuting the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals.

Obviously, because nobody could care less about the exact historicity of Annals other than a few historians. But here's another aspect: Tacitus' motivation to write Annals is clear (a history document), and one has a good estimate of whatever bias he put in. For example, Tacitus will not have been too critical towards the Roman Empire, but might have been disparaging towards outside cultures. So, one has to bracket out the aspects of clear bias when reading a document.
The Bible has many many authors (definitely many more than it internally claims), all of which had different motivations and biases. Seeing the Bible as a document of uniform historicity is ridiculous. For example, the synoptic gospels are obviously much closer to historical accuracy than John is. And John frankly reads like a sale pitch for Jesus; his main motivation is to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus. The historicity takes a backseat, which is visible from the fact that he moves around the order of things, probably because he thought it makes for more compelling reading.

rumborak

Very true. The gospels can't seem to agree on the lineage of Jesus, the flight into Egypt, and seemingly made up the whole census thing.

Also, isn't there debate amongst scholars about whether or not John actually wrote the gospel attributed to him?

[bosk1]

The gospels can't seem to agree on the lineage of Jesus, the flight into Egypt, and seemingly made up the whole census thing.

Why do you believe that?

[Perpetual Change]

That's completely wrong. The same standards are applied to other texts from the same period. But I would suggest that the Bible has been subject to more intense scrutiny because of the nature of the claims contained therein. I mean, there aren't thousands of websites dedicated to refuting the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals.

Religion and the existence of God are also much hotter topics than Tacitus. I don't think anyone goes through life without questioning either at some point. On the other hand, no one really cares about Tacitus but scholars-- and even then you'd have trouble finding people who do.

[hefdaddy42]

Paul quotes Luke and calls it Scripture. 

I don't think so.  Book, chapter, verse?

I figured you might speak up, cause I know you disagree with Paul's authorship of 1 Timothy.  But it doesn't really affect those three points, so...

Are you saying that Paul's quotation of Luke is in 1 Timothy?  If so, chapter, verse?

[rumborak]

Just to make sure I understand:  You question the historicity of John simply because (1) his main motivation is to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus, and (2) he does not necessarily relate events in chronological order, correct?

And many other aspects. The synoptic gospels show Jesus speaking in parables and sayings. That seems, to me, a historical account, since I can see no reason to do so other than the fact that Jesus actually spoke that way. John on the other way shows Jesus as a man engaged in discourses. You can construct the stretched argument that John is highlighting a different aspect of Jesus, but the more likely explanation is that John rewrote things to create a more compelling narrative again.

rumborak

[rumborak]

The gospels can't seem to agree on the lineage of Jesus

Why do you believe that?

Yawn. The different accounts can't even agree on Joseph's father.

<cue stretched arguments that supposedly resolve this problem>

rumborak

[Voyage 34]

The gospels can't seem to agree on the lineage of Jesus, the flight into Egypt, and seemingly made up the whole census thing.

Why do you believe that?

Matthew and Luke disagree on Joseph's lineage. Matthew is the only one that mentions the flight into Egypt, Luke only mentioning going to the temple for the sacrifice and returning to Nazareth in the same forty day period. There was a census in the Roman Empire around that time, but it came well after when Jesus was supposed to have been born, and there is no evidence, other than Luke, that says people had to return to their places of birth. This, to me, seems like a wild attempt at reconciling a Galilean being born in King David's hometown. Not to mention, Matthew states that Jesus was born in the time of Herod the Great, who actually died in 4 BCE, which at least ten or eleven years before the census that Luke based his on, took place.

[rumborak]

I don't know who is being served by saying all these differences can be resolved through wild theories. The writers of the gospels made up parts of their writings, it's as simple as that.

rumborak

[Voyage 34]

It is my understanding that Old Testament prophecies have the messiah being a Galilean but also born in the city of King David, which is Bethlehem. Or something like that. The point is, there is an attempt in the gospels to reconcile Old Testament prophecies, which is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but would have basically grown up in Galilee. 

[bosk1]

Just to make sure I understand:  You question the historicity of John simply because (1) his main motivation is to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus, and (2) he does not necessarily relate events in chronological order, correct?

And many other aspects. The synoptic gospels show Jesus speaking in parables and sayings. That seems, to me, a historical account, since I can see no reason to do so other than the fact that Jesus actually spoke that way. John on the other way shows Jesus as a man engaged in discourses. You can construct the stretched argument that John is highlighting a different aspect of Jesus, but the more likely explanation is that John rewrote things to create a more compelling narrative again.

rumborak

You say "many," but do you have any actual examples?

"Highlighting a different aspect of Jesus" and "creating a more compelling narrative" are not mutually exclusive, and neither aspect undermines the historicity of the narrative.  (and, incidentally, I believe both are likely true)

Matthew and Luke disagree on Joseph's lineage.

On their face, they appear to.  But leaving that alone for a moment…

Matthew is the only one that mentions the flight into Egypt, Luke only mentioning going to the temple for the sacrifice and returning to Nazareth in the same forty day period.

Yes, Matthew is the only one that mentions the flight into Egypt.  How is that somehow a problem?  But as far as it being “the same forty day period” as Luke’s mention of going to the temple and returning to Nazareth, I think you are mistaken.  The text does not say that.

There was a census in the Roman Empire around that time, but it came well after when Jesus was supposed to have been born, and there is no evidence, other than Luke, that says people had to return to their places of birth.

I think it’s silly to think that was the only census.  Why do you make that assumption?

Matthew states that Jesus was born in the time of Herod the Great, who actually died in 4 BCE, which at least ten or eleven years before the census that Luke based his on, took place.

This was dealt with in another thread, but again, you’re assumption that the census in Luke is later is incorrect.  The fact that there was a later census does not somehow establish that there was not an earlier census as well.  Luke also puts Jesus in the time of Herod the Great.  (see, e.g., Luke 1:5)

[bosk1]

I don't know who is being served by saying all these differences can be resolved through wild theories. The writers of the gospels made up parts of their writings, it's as simple as that.

rumborak

I'm not sure "who is being served" either.  But it's fun to continually see people post their wild theories about how parts of the writings are supposedly made up, and when digging into them, find out that there is no support whatsoever other than explanations that boil down to "well, I just don't think it's true and I'm willing to write it off because it talks about God."

[Voyage 34]

I think it’s silly to think that was the only census.  Why do you make that assumption?

I make this "assumption" because there is no other census mentioned in the Roman historical record, nor is there a shred of evidence to suggest that people were made to return to their birth places, and that is also considered to be completely false by historians. Again, the only census there is record for around this time, takes place in 6 or 7 CE.

[rumborak]

bosk: I think you know as well as any other here that theologians for the last 2000 years have struggled to explain the issues we're pointing out here. And they have been reinspected over and over again, because nobody has ever come up with a satisfying explanation for the discrepancies. Other than the obvious one, that certain stuff was simply made up, other stuff was copied and modified etc.

rumborak

[bosk1]

bosk: I think you know as well as any other here that theologians for the last 2000 years have struggled to explain the issues we're pointing out here. And they have been reinspected over and over again, because nobody has ever come up with a satisfying explanation for the discrepancies. Other than the obvious one, that certain stuff was simply made up.

rumborak

Translation:  Rather than address your arguments point by point, it's easier to throw up my hands and make the "well, everybody knows" argument.

Sorry, I'm not persuaded.  As with Erhman's book (which is where we started), there are plenty of assumptions being thrown around, exaggerated, and assumed to be fact with no factual backup.  That's not good analysis.  If that's what you want to base your own belief system on, that's fine.  But arguments like "well, source A recording an event must be wrong because it isn't recorded somewhere else, so I win" are not correct historical analysis.  The "struggles" you mention are simply sloppy analysis.  The one example I will give you is the genealogies.  Those do, on their face, appear to be in tension with one another, and you right that theologians and historians legitimately struggle to reconcile those.  The other examples simply hold no water under scrutiny.

[rumborak]

Translation:  Rather than address your arguments point by point, it's easier to throw up my hands and make the "well, everybody knows" argument.

It's been addressed. And addressed. And addressed again. Theologians, i.e. pious people, have struggled with issues you declare off-handedly as non-issues. You probably see that as evidence of being more pious than them, I see it as an exercise in ignorance.

The "struggles" you mention are simply sloppy analysis.

Haha. Brushing away 2,000 years of hard theological labor, in one sentence.

rumborak

[rumborak]

BTW, do you notice that you get more and more belligerent in these discussion?

rumborak

[bosk1]

  YOU STARTED IT!

But on a serious note:  If you think I'm being belligerent, I apologize.  In fact, I'll just go back and delete that post if you think it was inappropriate.  But that being said, while I'm not tryint to deflect blame, I would also invite you to examine your own tone in these types of discussions.

[eric42434224]

Bosk;
Obviously your faith is a very big part of your life, perhaps the biggest.  Do you think that it may be impossible to be objective and detached when discussing the validity of something that you have based your life and eternal soul on?  I understand that Rumborak may be arguing from the other side of the coin, but he is not emotionally vested in his conclusions as you are.
Question:  Is there any circumstance or evidence that would make you doubt the validity of the Gospels?  From reading your posts, I dont think there is.  Yet people keep questioning it....questions I think are valid.  It seems these are beginning to frustrate you.

[bosk1]

Good points, Eric.  And your questions are difficult to answer.  Let me put it this way:  Am I biased?  Absolutely.  And I struggle to make sure I am doing my best to be aware of and step outside that bias when needed, and to constantly evaluate my position.  There is a delicate balance between being fully convinced and yet retaining an open mind.  I try to do both, sometimes more successfully than others.

If I seem frustrated, I don't mean to.  I do sometimes get impatient debunking the same arguments over and over.  And, yes, if the gospels were frauds, I would want to know.  I am convinced they are not to the point I have gone against my upbringing and stakes my life on it, as you mentioned.  But it would be silly to stubbornly insist on continuing if they are not true.  But, again, there really isn't any evidence I have seen that they are frauds, and I feel that the vast majority of reasons that are brought up to suggest that they are are exaggerations or unsupported leaps in logic.


EDIT:  Eric, I will also say that if you detect frustration in my posts at times, a lot of that also comes from the tone of the posts I am responding to.  I know that whatever someone else says and how they may say it are not excuses for me to lose patience.  But it's a lot easier to respond to a posts with the tone yours have than...some others.