Why should we believe the gospels?

[William Wallace]

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.

That's precisely my point. I think you had it backwards when you said "the standards applied to it are very different and a lot of issues just get swept under the rug." The methods used to study the text of the New Testament are, in principle, no different than those used to study other texts. The major difference is that the good book has been placed under microscope by believers and skeptics alike for centuries.

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

I think you're wrong about the number of authors. There's enough evidence, I think, to conclude that the Gospels were written by the men they are attributed to. But this is slightly off topic.

Anyway, when it comes to historicity, you're repeating things we've already discussed. Yes, you have to take an author's bias into consideration when considering the validity of their claims. But you can't outright dismiss what they wrote because you don't like their perspectives. Too often in these discussions solid textual analysis is supplanted by ideologically driven interpretation. There's nothing shocking about a ancient biography arranged out of sequential order. By itself, it is no reason to reject an author's recounting of events. Get over it.

And, frankly, there's been nothing presented that seriously challenges the historicity of any of the gospels. I've see lots of assumptions made and conclusions drawn based on sketchy readings of certain passages, but not much else. What exactly do you see in John's Gospel that invalidates it? To be sure, there are a handful of verses that are doubtful. But we know about them. They're either no longer included in most Bible versions or the're heavily footnoted so the reader is aware of this fact.

[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...

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

5:18

[bosk1]

  Paul is quoting Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15 and 25:4.

[Fiery Winds]

True, but he is quoting Luke as well.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,”[c] and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.

A similar phrase is in Matthew 10:10 as well.

[bosk1]

Yes, but I really don't think Paul is quoting either of the gospels given that both were probably written about the same time and he might not have even seen them, AND he was a Jew, familiar with the source material  in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

[hefdaddy42]

That text is clearly, as bosky correctly points out, quoting from Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

[Ħ]

Well, I have a couple questions, because it really does seem like Paul is quoting Luke.  I read the verse from Leviticus and while the theme is the same, it is not word-for-word, as it is in Luke.

1) Bosk, I think you said earlier that Luke was written in the early sixties at latest.  When was 1 Timothy written?  I always thought it was written later, since this is the point when the churches in Asia are starting to fall into apostasy.

2) Serious question, but is Paul's physician Luke the same as the author?  If that's true, then Paul would have had access to the gospel of Luke.  I'm guessing it's a different Luke, though.

3) What does this have to do with the authority of the gospels? (again, serious question, because I feel like it could tie in, but I'm not exactly sure)

[rumborak]

I think you're wrong about the number of authors. There's enough evidence, I think, to conclude that the Gospels were written by the men they are attributed to. But this is slightly off topic.

Let's set the playing field here. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody in this forum, speaks ancient Greek.
That means, if scholars say that there's a distinct shift in semantics, word usage, syntax etc. from one synoptic passage to another, we have to take their word for it. It is just plain presumptuous to think one can make a judgment on this based on the reading of a translation. And especially those subtle aspects that would indicate a different author don't survive the translation barrier. You read it in English and it looks fine, because it has been translated by the same person.
And even then, through the translation, I had many times the impression "wtf, this is a complete non-sequitor and change in style" during reading the synoptics. And the guys who actually speak the original language say it's even more pronounced than that, and that the only explanation is that there were different authors adding to the compendium.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Well, I have a couple questions, because it really does seem like Paul is quoting Luke.  I read the verse from Leviticus and while the theme is the same, it is not word-for-word, as it is in Luke.

The author specifically mentions the word "scripture."  In the 1st century, the only "scripture" was the Hebrew Scripture.

1) Bosk, I think you said earlier that Luke was written in the early sixties at latest.  When was 1 Timothy written?  I always thought it was written later, since this is the point when the churches in Asia are starting to fall into apostasy.

Not sure where he got the early sixties.  Most scholars date Luke anywhere from the mid-70s to the late 80s/early 90s.  But Paul died in 62.  So he didn't quote Luke.

2) Serious question, but is Paul's physician Luke the same as the author?  If that's true, then Paul would have had access to the gospel of Luke.  I'm guessing it's a different Luke, though.

No one knows if the author of Luke is the same person known as Luke in Paul's writings.  But even if it's the same person, that still doesn't mean that Paul would have had access to Luke, because we would have no way of knowing when during the time that they knew each other that Luke's gospel was written.  At any rate, almost all scholars agree that Paul's writings were the earliest Christian writings, with the gospels coming later.  In his writings, Paul certainly never mentions having access to a written gospel, from Luke or anyone else.

3) What does this have to do with the authority of the gospels? (again, serious question, because I feel like it could tie in, but I'm not exactly sure)

Although you and I most likely have different ideas on what "the authority of the gospels" means, I would guess that this has nothing to do with the authority of the gospels.  You are simply claiming that Paul quoted a gospel when he really didn't.  Authority doesn't enter into it.

[Ħ]

Ok.  Well, thanks for responding...some things to think about.

1) Bosk, I think you said earlier that Luke was written in the early sixties at latest.  When was 1 Timothy written?  I always thought it was written later, since this is the point when the churches in Asia are starting to fall into apostasy.

Not sure where he got the early sixties.  Most scholars date Luke anywhere from the mid-70s to the late 80s/early 90s.  But Paul died in 62.  So he didn't quote Luke.

I think the logic went like this: Acts doesn't contain Paul's death (62?) or the destruction of the temple (70).  Since it doesn't contain these major events, it was likely written before them.  Since Acts is the sequel to Luke, that means that Luke had to be written even earlier.  Hence, early sixties at the latest.

By the way, where do you get that Paul died in 62?

[hefdaddy42]

I think the logic went like this: Acts doesn't contain Paul's death (62?) or the destruction of the temple (70).  Since it doesn't contain these major events, it was likely written before them.  Since Acts is the sequel to Luke, that means that Luke had to be written even earlier.  Hence, early sixties at the latest.

I don't think that supposition is logical.  The leaving out of those details don't mean the author didn't know about them.  But the inclusion of them would have been detrimental to the point of the writing: the burgeoning hope of the growth of the church.  Ending such a text with "and then Paul was beheaded, and then Jerusalem was destroyed" would have been a major downer.

By the way, where do you get that Paul died in 62?

lol, I don't remember where I got that specific year (but I know I read it somewhere).  But according to tradition, he was beheaded under the rule of Nero.  Nero died in 68, and his major persecution of Christians in Rome was following the fire in 64.  So, best guess, Paul was martyred in the early-to-mid 60s.

[William Wallace]

I think you're wrong about the number of authors. There's enough evidence, I think, to conclude that the Gospels were written by the men they are attributed to. But this is slightly off topic.

Let's set the playing field here. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody in this forum, speaks ancient Greek.
That means, if scholars say that there's a distinct shift in semantics, word usage, syntax etc. from one synoptic passage to another, we have to take their word for it. It is just plain presumptuous to think one can make a judgment on this based on the reading of a translation. And especially those subtle aspects that would indicate a different author don't survive the translation barrier. You read it in English and it looks fine, because it has been translated by the same person.
And even then, through the translation, I had many times the impression "wtf, this is a complete non-sequitor and change in style" during reading the synoptics. And the guys who actually speak the original language say it's even more pronounced than that, and that the only explanation is that there were different authors adding to the compendium.

rumborak

I know I'm just a silly fundamentalist, but have you considered that it's incorrect to argue that "scholars say..." in a discussion like this? This is a nuanced issue and opinion among the experts varies. There are certainly a lot of "guys who read the language" who would agree with your view, but they're not the only ones studying the texts. But that's not the point. If you want to trail off into gospel authorship (are you going to respond to my previous post?), we should focus on the available evidence instead of making sweeping claims about what scholars think.

[rumborak]

I know I'm just a silly fundamentalist, but have you considered that it's incorrect to argue that "scholars say..." in a discussion like this? This is a nuanced issue and opinion among the experts varies. There are certainly a lot of "guys who read the language" who would agree with your view, but they're not the only ones studying the texts. But that's not the point. If you want to trail off into gospel authorship (are you going to respond to my previous post?), we should focus on the available evidence instead of making sweeping claims about what scholars think.

I'm not sure what point in the previous post I should be addressing right now.

The question of exact authorship is pretty damn important I would say; I think any claim of historicity goes out the window if the author is not who he claims to be!

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I know I'm just a silly fundamentalist, but have you considered that it's incorrect to argue that "scholars say..." in a discussion like this? This is a nuanced issue and opinion among the experts varies. There are certainly a lot of "guys who read the language" who would agree with your view, but they're not the only ones studying the texts. But that's not the point. If you want to trail off into gospel authorship (are you going to respond to my previous post?), we should focus on the available evidence instead of making sweeping claims about what scholars think.

I'm not sure what point in the previous post I should be addressing right now.

You should be admitting that your arguments are faulty and apologizing for making them. I accept in advance. 

The question of exact authorship is pretty damn important I would say; I think any claim of historicity goes out the window if the author is not who he claims to be!

rumborak

I disagree. Authorship, while important, is a separate matter from reliability. Why would identifying the author be a condition for accepting the claims of a text? As long as you can verify the accuracy of the content, I don't think it should. 

[hefdaddy42]

The question of exact authorship is pretty damn important I would say; I think any claim of historicity goes out the window if the author is not who he claims to be!

rumborak

I disagree. Authorship, while important, is a separate matter from reliability. Why would identifying the author be a condition for accepting the claims of a text? As long as you can verify the accuracy of the content, I don't think it should. 

I agree with this, for the most part.  For example, while I don't think Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to him (and I don't believe that Peter wrote either of the letters attributed to him), those letters are still very important in tracing the rise of Christian doctrine.  Also, none of the Gospels have any internal authorship claims whatsoever; their authorship is completely attributed ex post facto.

[bosk1]

Also, none of the Gospels have any internal authorship claims whatsoever; their authorship is completely attributed ex post facto.

True.  ...at least for the synoptics.  While John doesn't identify himself by name, the author is practically screaming throughout the book, "Hey, I'm John!"

[hefdaddy42]

Also, none of the Gospels have any internal authorship claims whatsoever; their authorship is completely attributed ex post facto.

True.  ...at least for the synoptics.  While John doesn't identify himself by name, the author is practically screaming throughout the book, "Hey, I'm John!"

How do you mean?  Are you referring to the similarities to the writing in the Johannine letters?

[Ħ]

I read this in a book, so it's not my idea:

The attributed authors of the synoptics are Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  It is unlikely that a gospel written many years after eyewitnesses would have chosen to call the gospels by these names.  Mark and Luke weren't even major players--they weren't even apostles.  And Matthew would have been an unpopular choice, seeing as he was a tax-collecter.

If the gospels were attributed to Peter, Thomas, and James, yeah, that would raise some eyebrows.  But they aren't.  The attributed authors are just too unlikely, and that adds to the argument that they were written by who they say they were.

[hefdaddy42]

That's not really an argument, though.  In fact, it would be MORE believable if they had been attributed to Peter, Thomas, and James.

[rumborak]

I dunno, I find it a bit weird that only one apostle would write an account (and even that one is not assumed to be actually by Matthew).

rumborak

[Ħ]

That's not really an argument, though.  In fact, it would be MORE believable if they had been attributed to Peter, Thomas, and James.

I'll be honest without trying to be too mean, but one thing that sort of bothers me about the way you deal with all these arguments is that you respond to others by saying "nu-uh" and proceed to state your own claim.  In both your refutation and your assertion, you don't offer reasons why.  It makes things really difficult.

So, I said that it was ridiculous for an ingenuine book to be attributed to unlikely people like Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  And I gave a reason why.  So my questions for you are 1) what are the problems with my assertion, and 2) why is your assertion stronger than mine?

[rumborak]

His argument is by human nature. Of course you would find an account by an inner-circle person to be more believable and persuasive than from a random disciple.
That said, a random disciple's account has the benefit of not being as likely to be rejected by the "authorities", i.e. the surviving apostles.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

That's not really an argument, though.  In fact, it would be MORE believable if they had been attributed to Peter, Thomas, and James.

I'll be honest without trying to be too mean, but one thing that sort of bothers me about the way you deal with all these arguments is that you respond to others by saying "nu-uh" and proceed to state your own claim.  In both your refutation and your assertion, you don't offer reasons why.  It makes things really difficult.

So, I said that it was ridiculous for an ingenuine book to be attributed to unlikely people like Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  And I gave a reason why.  So my questions for you are 1) what are the problems with my assertion, and 2) why is your assertion stronger than mine?

My reason was that it wasn't an argument.  You said "It is unlikely that a gospel written many years after eyewitnesses would have chosen to call the gospels by these names.  Mark and Luke weren't even major players--they weren't even apostles.  And Matthew would have been an unpopular choice, seeing as he was a tax-collecter."  But those aren't reasons for it to be unlikely.  For example, if Mark was someone that, as tradition states, got his info directly from Peter, then he WAS a major player.  Likewise, you earlier claimed that Paul quoted from Luke; doesn't that make him a major player?  And the fact that Matthew was a tax-collector would NOT make him unpopular, since he repented from that and became a follower of Christ.  You then said "If the gospels were attributed to Peter, Thomas, and James, yeah, that would raise some eyebrows."  But you don't say why that would raise eyebrows.  You then said "The attributed authors are just too unlikely, and that adds to the argument that they were written by who they say they were."  But you still haven't given a good reason as to why those individuals are unlikely to be correct. 

Sorry if you took my shortening of all of that to "that isn't an argument" to sound "mean" because I don't have a mean bone in my body on this subject.  But the reasons you gave make no sense to me.

[Ħ]

They are unlikely because Matthew is a tax-collecter, Mark is a sidekick, and Luke isn't a disciple/apostle.

If fabricated, this would certainly be unusual choice of "writers".

If genuine, well...it makes sense because they want to ascribe the correct name to who wrote the book.


Now take the scenario where we have the synoptics ascribed to Thomas, Peter, and James.

If fabricated, it makes sense to ascribe the books to these major figures in Christian history.


Putting all that together, there is a much lower chance of fabrication because the writers of the Synoptics are extremely odd characters.

[hefdaddy42]

They are unlikely because Matthew is a tax-collecter, Mark is a sidekick, and Luke isn't a disciple/apostle.

Well, again, why do those things make it unlikely?

If fabricated, this would certainly be unusual choice of "writers".

Why?

If genuine, well...it makes sense because they want to ascribe the correct name to who wrote the book.

Yes, that goes without saying.

Now take the scenario where we have the synoptics ascribed to Thomas, Peter, and James.

If fabricated, it makes sense to ascribe the books to these major figures in Christian history.

Why?

Putting all that together, there is a much lower chance of fabrication because the writers of the Synoptics are extremely odd characters.

They aren't extremely odd.  That's what I'm saying.  Matthew was supposedly a disciple, which would make him an eyewitness - the fact that he used to be a tax collector makes no difference.  And both Mark and Luke would have direct ties to Peter and Paul, respectively.  There is nothing about them that makes them unlikely choices to have written about Jesus. 

[Ħ]

Hold on, I'm a little confused.

I'm arguing for the authorship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  Is this something that you disagree with?  I guess I naturally assumed that you did because of all your other views that coincide with popular academic views.

[hefdaddy42]

Hold on, I'm a little confused.

I'm arguing for the authorship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  Is this something that you disagree with?  I guess I naturally assumed that you did because of all your other views that coincide with popular academic views.

I have no opinion on who wrote the Gospels.  We have no way of knowing for sure, so it is irrelevant to me.  I don't think the reasons for the traditional attributions are all that convincing, but at the same time there are no viable alternatives.  Since the titles and authorship aren't parts of the actual text but were just attributed centuries later, I refer to the authors as "the author of Mark" or "the author of Matthew."  But I don't take it for granted that it was Mark or Matthew.  But, like I said, it doesn't matter; the text is what it is, no matter who wrote it.

[rumborak]

OK, here's a non-sequitur: I was just reading the beginning of Matthew, and I don't get the passage 1:22-25. Matthew is quoting the OT by saying the virgin birth's child will be called Immanuel, but then he goes on to say the child was called Jesus.
Isn't he shooting into his own foot with that statement? I mean, he is obviously trying to connect OT prophecy to Jesus, but isn't he rather showing that it's not the case?

rumborak 

[yeshaberto]

OK, here's a non-sequitur: I was just reading the beginning of Matthew, and I don't get the passage 1:22-25. Matthew is quoting the OT by saying the virgin birth's child will be called Immanuel, but then he goes on to say the child was called Jesus.
Isn't he shooting into his own foot with that statement? I mean, he is obviously trying to connect OT prophecy to Jesus, but isn't he rather showing that it's not the case?

rumborak 

I don't see it...one is figurative of who he is (god is with us) and the other literal of what he would do (jesus, which meant "yah saves"). 

[rumborak]

well, yes, he mentions what the names mean etymologically, but doesn't remove the fact that Jesus was never called Immanuel, no? I mean, it's still a name primarily, just like the name William is, even though William originally means something specific ("wants to protect"). Just because someone is protective doesn't mean his name is William.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Rumby, I don't think this is really a valid point in the argument against the authority of the gospels.  Either 1) the author was so stupid that he made an obvious contradiction within 4 verses, or 2) there's more to it.  I'm assuming that the author of Matthew had an IQ above 80, so I'm going to side with scenario 2.  It's the same case when someone says that the gospels aren't trustworthy because the lineage in Mat 1 is incomplete...there is a stubbornness against the fact that things are done for a reason.

[hefdaddy42]

Rumby, I don't think this is really a valid point in the argument against the authority of the gospels.  Either 1) the author was so stupid that he made an obvious contradiction within 4 verses, or 2) there's more to it.  I'm assuming that the author of Matthew had an IQ above 80, so I'm going to side with scenario 2. 

I'm curious, what more do you think there is to it?  I have my own thoughts, I'm just curious as to what yours are.

It's the same case when someone says that the gospels aren't trustworthy because the lineage in Mat 1 is incomplete...there is a stubbornness against the fact that things are done for a reason.

What are your thoughts on this reason?  Again, I'm just curious about your point-of-view.

[rumborak]

Rumby, I don't think this is really a valid point in the argument against the authority of the gospels.  Either 1) the author was so stupid that he made an obvious contradiction within 4 verses, or 2) there's more to it.  I'm assuming that the author of Matthew had an IQ above 80, so I'm going to side with scenario 2.  It's the same case when someone says that the gospels aren't trustworthy because the lineage in Mat 1 is incomplete...there is a stubbornness against the fact that things are done for a reason.

I'm sorry, I should have made more clear, my post wasn't for or against the authority of the gospels. I read the passage yesterday, scratched my head at it and figured I'd post the question in this thread since it's about the gospels.
Regarding your comment about intelligence, I don't think it's a question of IQ, it's a question of zeal. I think Matthew is a bit too eager to connect Jesus to prophecy, so some of the connections are more miss than hit.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Hold on, I'm a little confused.

I'm arguing for the authorship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  Is this something that you disagree with?  I guess I naturally assumed that you did because of all your other views that coincide with popular academic views.

I have no opinion on who wrote the Gospels.  We have no way of knowing for sure, so it is irrelevant to me.  I don't think the reasons for the traditional attributions are all that convincing, but at the same time there are no viable alternatives.  Since the titles and authorship aren't parts of the actual text but were just attributed centuries later, I refer to the authors as "the author of Mark" or "the author of Matthew."  But I don't take it for granted that it was Mark or Matthew.  But, like I said, it doesn't matter; the text is what it is, no matter who wrote it.

I have a slightly different perspective. Anonymity has little to do with the reliability of the text, but if we can attribute authorship to Matthew, Mark and Luke the less likely we are to see headline chasers like Richard Dawkins spouting off non sequiturs (e.g. "We don't even know who wrote them! How can they be reliable!!!!!OMG!") about the NT. And that hopefully means fewer people will be turned away from Christianity by crummy logic. Of course, that assumes we have good reasons to believe we know who wrote the gospels, and I think we do.

[bosk1]

OK, here's a non-sequitur: I was just reading the beginning of Matthew, and I don't get the passage 1:22-25. Matthew is quoting the OT by saying the virgin birth's child will be called Immanuel, but then he goes on to say the child was called Jesus.
Isn't he shooting into his own foot with that statement? I mean, he is obviously trying to connect OT prophecy to Jesus, but isn't he rather showing that it's not the case?

rumborak 

Interesting question.  I hadn't really thought much about that before or studied it in any detail, but here's my brief take, for what it's worth.  Immanuel is not necessarily what we refer to as a "proper name" (Joe, Jim, Rolph, etc.), but more a title or description.¹  The meaning is "God is with us" or "God with us."  (1) One of the main doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was God.  Having physically lived here among men, the title or description would be fitting from a Christian perspective.  (2) If I am understanding the passage in Isaiah correctly, Isaiah 7:14 seems to me to imply that it was something his mother would have called him (It says "the virgin [in this case, Mary] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.").  Mary may very well have referred to Jesus this way.  We simply do not know from anything that was written down.  It doesn't necessarily say that others would refer to him that way.  So, either way, I don't see that Matthew necessarily makes a mistake here.  But, again, it's not really something I've given a whole lot of thought to.


^1.  Utilizing the passage in Isaiah 7, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," the focus is on the word "name."  The Hebrew word, shem, can mean a proper name, but does not necessarily have to.  The idea of the word is to convey "definite and conspicuous position."  (which a proper name does, but a title or description may as well)  In addition to "name," it is also frequently used in Hebrew texts to convey "reputation, fame, glory" or "memorial, monument."  Source:  https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/shem.html