[Athos]

You promise you'll answer honest questions???

I will answer honest questions - if they're honest.

[Wondergirl]

You promise you'll answer honest questions???

I'll honestly discuss biblical topics with you but no pinning me to the wall.

[dwashbur]

The real question is this. Why would you, a confessing Christian, hesitate for even a millisecond to agree WITH ENTHUSIASM that Jesus was raised from the dead? Very, very suspicious.

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.

And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.

But I'm a troll.

[Wondergirl]

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

But I'm a troll.

Be sure to use "I" statements. "I've often wondered..." and "I really might question..." and "I have doubts about..."

[jlisenbe]

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.

And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.

Give us your top three of the "few questions" and then the answers. That's a really interesting approach. I'd love to see how it works.

[dwashbur]

Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first.

[jlisenbe]

Are you wanting us to answer?

[Wondergirl]

Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first.

--Matthew 28:1 says that there were two women who went to the sepulchre, in Mark 16:1 three women went, Luke 24:10 said there was one, and John 20:1 says five or more. Every single Gospel differs.

--According to Matthew 28:1 it was at dawn that the women went to the Sepulchre, but in John 20:1 they went before dawn, when it was still dark.

--Again, we encounter another subject on which none of the Gospels agree. Who was at the tomb when the women got there? Matthew 28:2 says there was an angel, Mark 16:5 says a young man, Luke 24:4 says there were two men, and finally John 20:12 says there were two angels.

--And just how did these people get into the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says that the angel rolled the stone from the entrance, but Luke 24:4 says the stone was already moved.

--The Gospels don't agree on where the angel(s) and/or men were. Matthew 28:2 says that he was outside to open the tomb... but the other Gospels they are found inside the tomb.

--In Matthew 28:8 the women run to tell the disciples about what they found at the tomb. But Mark 16:8 says they were too scared to tell anyone.

--Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm

[jlisenbe]

you'd think they'd put their heads together first.

There are several replies to that.

1. The accounts differ but don't seem to contradict. That being the case, the differences can be seen as providing a fuller, more detailed account than any one Gospel would have provided. So if one account says there were two women, another account saying there were five simply adds a fuller version, but there is no contradiction. It is true that there were two women, and it is true that there were five women. BTW, Luke did not say there was only one woman.
2. They would have been as aware of the differences in the late first century as we are now. That no effort was made to harmonize them speaks volumes for the perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals. That is, for me, enormously important.
3. If all four authors were writing the accounts either as they personally remembered them (Matthew and John) or in the manner in which it was reported to them (Luke and Mark), then there would have been no need in their minds to get together and make sure they all wrote exactly the same thing. They all felt they were writing the truth.
4. The similarities far outweigh the differences.

[jlisenbe]

For what it's worth, I thought WG's post on this topic was informative.

[Athos]

There are several replies to that.

The similarities far outweigh the differences.

This implies that the differences don't matter since they are “far outweighed” by the similarities. Not at all true. It's like saying lies don't matter since the person has made other statements that are not lies.

The rest of the numbered statements have similar conditions that fail the test of logic. For example, he states that the differences are “fuller”. As proof, the example provided is that 5 is “fuller” than 2. That avoids the fact that 5 is not 2. That is a major disparity between eyewitnesses or copyists.

The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4^th century – centuries later.

The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value.

WG's points are good ones and they cast doubt on the accuracy of Gospels copied after centuries of copying.


These are more than mere “differences”.

2 women vs. 5 women,
dawn vs. dusk,
angels vs. men,
inside the tomb vs. outside the tomb,
stone is moved vs. stone not moved,
women tell the disciples vs. the women do not tell the disciples,
Mary Magdalene knew it was Jesus vs. Mary Magdalene never saw Jesus.


Far better answers are needed to deal with a denier of the resurrection.

[jlisenbe]

The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4th century – centuries later.

There are no complete copies of any ancient documents for centuries after the original autographs. No one suggests that is a major problem. If you count the hundreds of direct quotes by the early church fathers of the second century and combine that with the dozen or so manuscript fragments (most manuscripts are incomplete...not unusual) from the second century, then it is plainly apparent that the NT books existed and were being copied and widely distributed in the second century. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that just as there is no reason to believe that the NT documents were substantially changed at any point. If you know of evidence to the contrary, then I encourage you to post it.

The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value.

"Most scholars" don't believe any such thing. The second century church fathers wrote that the authors we know the Gospels by were, indeed, the authors. And we don't assume they knew each other, we KNOW they knew each other. It is beyond dispute that Matthew, John, and Mark would have known each other very well. Luke, at the beginning of his Gospel, made it very clear that he had researched his material well and would likely have known many people still alive at the time who had accompanied Jesus. He was in Jerusalem for the two years of Paul's imprisonment there. He also would have known Mark from his travels with Paul.

As to the rest of your post, there is a HUUGGGEEEE difference between texts that differ in detail (number of women) versus texts that contradict. I would not deny that some of the differences are difficult, but most are not such as the number of women or this one. "Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23." The Luke passage does not say they "never saw Him." The John passage says she did not immediately recognize Him but then very quickly did. The Matthew passage also says the women saw Him. So they do not contradict. They differ, but do not contradict.

At any rate, I'd love to see DW's answer to that question.

[Wondergirl]

Here's an interesting site that tries to clear up all those differences among the Gospel writers:

https://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus...ict-each-other

E.g., "One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb, the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure [from where they were staying]."

[jlisenbe]

That was a good site. McDowell has been around a long time. I remember reading his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, when I was in Bible College back before the Civil War.

As to the authors of the Gospels, this site has a good discussion. https://www.joydigitalmag.com/burnin...wrote-gospels/

It includes this. "By contrast, we have evidence (via church historian Eusebius) that Papias named Matthew and Mark as the author of those Gospels by AD 120. This is at most 50 years after Mark was written, and 30 years after John was written, according to the most accepted dating of the Gospels. About 60 years after Papias in c 180 AD, Irenaeus names each of the evangelists as the authors of their works. This is followed by Tertullian in about 207 AD and Origen in approximately 245 AD."

I would add this. Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.

You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.

https://people.engr.tamu.edu/davis/O...2010-01-05.pdf

[Athos]

There are no complete copies of any ancient documents for centuries after the original autographs. No one suggests that is a major problem. If you count the hundreds of direct quotes by the early church fathers of the second century and combine that with the dozen or so manuscript fragments (most manuscripts are incomplete...not unusual) from the second century, then it is plainly apparent that the NT books existed and were being copied and widely distributed in the second century. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that just as there is no reason to believe that the NT documents were substantially changed at any point. If you know of evidence to the contrary, then I encourage you to post it.

The condition of other ancient documents is irrelevant. The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.

No one denies that the books existed and were widely copied during the second century. Again, the difficulty is that those books are no longer available.The complete extant books are from the 4th century - a long time afterwards. Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.

You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.

I took the Mary Magdalene citation from WG's post. I see now that further along in that Gospel, she does recognize Jesus. I stand by the others.

The differences certainly belie the claim that they all saw the same thing. It is much more likely that the story got muddled over the centuries being passed down over such an extensive period of time.

[Athos]

"By contrast, we have evidence (via church historian Eusebius) that Papias named Matthew and Mark as the author of those Gospels by AD 120. This is at most 50 years after Mark was written, and 30 years after John was written, according to the most accepted dating of the Gospels. About 60 years after Papias in c 180 AD, Irenaeus names each of the evangelists as the authors of their works. This is followed by Tertullian in about 207 AD and Origen in approximately 245 AD."

As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.

Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.

You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.

You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.

To repeat, the issue is NOT that the books existed or that they were read and were considered authoritative. The issue is the authorship.

[jlisenbe]

Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.

But reliable copies and quotations from the second century, which for ancient documents is incredibly close, show no changes of any consequence.

You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.

To say it is not disputed is incredible. That Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.

As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.

Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? Well...believe that if you wish. The bottom line is that you have presented not a shred of evidence to the contrary. So in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.

You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.

The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea. Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them, and when there is not an ounce of ancient testimony to the contrary, then I just don't know how you can hold to that position other than mere, unsubstantiated conjecture. And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.

The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.

I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside. Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said. This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.

https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-o...doesnt-matter/

But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.

[Athos]

But reliable copies and quotations from the second century, which for ancient documents is incredibly close, show no changes of any consequence.

The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.

To say it is not disputed is incredible.

Incredible only to fundamentalists.

From the Oxford Annotated Bible, Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.

That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.

Not by most scholars.

Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? ........ in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.

In a court of law, "founding fathers" do not get special privileges. So their testimony would be hearsay.

The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea.

Bruce was an evangelical fundamentalist. No doubt many would reject my idea, but more would accept it.

Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them,

It was not the intent of the Church Fathers (not "founding fathers") to examine the issue. See the Oxford Bible paragraph above. Also, some of the early fathers had ideas that are very weird and certainly not held by anyone today.

And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.

See the Oxford Bible quote above. There are dozens more saying the same thing. It's only the fundies that hold to the traditional view.

I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside.

You're missing the point again. If Homer didn't write The Iliad, would we toss aside The Iliad? That's what you're saying with the gospels. As though questioning the gospel authorship results in tossing aside all of them. It doesn't work that way. This is the second time I have tried to explain that to you.

Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said.

If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.

This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.

https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-o...doesnt-matter/

It is from the point of view of a Southern Baptist. Few, if any, Southern Baptists are objective or neutral on the issue.

But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.

No, this is a major error of yours. An all-or-nothing approach is the mark of fundamentalism. Your own admission of believing in talking reptiles is proof positive of the error of your ways.

[jlisenbe]

The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.

Only to you. No one who knows anything about textual criticism would make such a statement. First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs. I think you are simply not familiar enough with the process. Might add that the vast majority of NT manuscripts, in particular in the first five centuries, are fragmentary. To dismiss them as of "no real value" is just amazing.

The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong." (Note: Quotation marks are only there for sarcasm.) Unbelievable. Who is more biased in this discussion that you are? Your bias against conservative scholarship is plainly apparent.

If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.

You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest. No, I do not accept that. Could they be affected by bias? Of course. Tell me your liberal critics are not. Can you really suggest that?

As to the Oxford Annotated Bible Quote, there are no named individuals. Even worse, his only real objection is that the evangelicals are biased, as though liberal scholars are not. That's laughable.

In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.

I will ask again. What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do.

[Athos]

Only to you. No one who knows anything about textual criticism would make such an absurd statement.

Not at all absurd. The second century fragments consist of a few lines, none of which discuss the possibility of authors different than the traditional ones.

First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs.

I have never complained about not having the autographs. I have stated a fact. I have not dismissed the existence of fragments. I have said they do not matter in the discussion. The fact that they are close in time to the autographs has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Ah, the real Jl has emerged. When losing the argument, attack, and attack again.

The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong.

No, I said they are biased. Do you deny that?

You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest.

No, I am claiming they put their faith ahead of their objectivity. You do the same thing and, if memory serves, you have even bragged about doing that. Do you do that? Put your faith ahead of your objectivity?

Tell me your liberal critics are not.

I don't have liberal critics. (You seem to be obsessed with "liberal".)

In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.

That is true. The only problem is we have no records - excluding tiny fragments - from witnesses close in time to the events.

What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels?

My sources are those scholars who examine the Bible from many different angles. They include text criticism, form criticism, archeology, and history, to name a few. Here is an excellent description of the methods used.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/b...testament.aspx

Do you have any evidence whatsoever?

I have given you more than enough for you to chew on. But, as usual, you have succumbed to nastiness, your go-to position when you feel lost and overwhelmed.

Your anger is very obvious. It's not my intention to make you like that, but it seems to arise when you feel defeated. It would be better for you if you just calmly tried to read and learn.