[jlisenbe]

The evidence put forward for the non-traditional authorship of the Gospels was an excerpt plagiarized from an article hosted by "Internet Infidels" (No, I'm not making that up.) in which it was claimed that the majority of mainstream scholars had determined that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them. When it was pointed out that not only did the early church fathers, including three from the second century, not question the traditional authorship but even clearly supported it, the person making the argument left the discussion in a huff. The question of how anyone could know what the majority of mainstream scholars thought about this subject was left unanswered as was the question as to how four unnamed imposters could have written the four Gospels in the second century and gotten away with it.

[dwashbur]

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar. Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.
As promised, I went back and looked at each of your posts and not a single one had "other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events". As far as Caesar, I can't find you claiming miraculous events by him.

Homer and Virgil certainly wrote about miraculous events, but I assume you meant miraculous events like the resurrection that are still claimed to be true, not fiction.

I hope this was just an oversight on your part, and not something devious.

Did I forget to include the Sumerians and Babylonians and their stories? If so, I apologize. I thought I had mentioned them.

[dwashbur]

"The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."

There's only one part of this that I dispute, and it's part of the reason I can't go all the way in that direction: we have evidence in the gospels that Jesus spoke fluent Greek as well as Aramaic. He made at least two puns that are only possible in Greek, plus he spoke to various Romans and other "foreigners" who didn't speak Aramaic. Greek had been the lingua franca of the region since Alexander, and when the Romans took over they left well enough alone since they already spoke Greek as well. Based on what we know of him, can anybody really see Pontius Pilate going to the trouble to learn Aramaic? I think not.

The reality is, everybody in Judea and Galilee was trilingual. Aramaic was the language of home life, Greek was the language of trade and dealing with the Romans, and Hebrew was the language of the synagogue and the temple. So I have to dispute the claim that the gospels were written in a language Jesus didn't know. Not only did he know it, pretty much everybody did.

[jlisenbe]

DW posted, "We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings."

Athos replied, "It's an epic poem. Do you seriously think all that talk of gods and goddesses is true?"

[Athos]

Did I forget to include the Sumerians and Babylonians and their stories? If so, I apologize. I thought I had mentioned them.

You mentioned the Sumerian epic poem but nothing about the Babylonians - you can always go back and see what you wrote. You seem to be saying that the Sumerian poem is a true example of a miraculous event occurring in ancient literature other than the New Testament. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that the "miracles" in that work of fiction are actual events. I sincerely hope I'm misreading you. We already have Jl believing in talking snakes from another piece of fiction.

from Athos (quoted)
"The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."

from dwashbur
There's only one part of this that I dispute, ............................... we have evidence in the gospels that Jesus spoke fluent Greek as well as Aramaic.

Thank you for that. I bow to your superior knowledge re what languages were spoken by Jesus.

Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for not disputing what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.

Some questions are still hanging. In post #126, you seem to be saying the Jews knew of the resurrection which had been witnessed by the guards. That was to explain why they were so against the Christians, killing them, etc. Would you clarify what you meant? See also my post #144 which addresses this topic more fully.

There is also the unanswered request for you to provide more information about the miracle you experienced that you wrote about in post #168. As a student of comparative religion, I'm genuinely interested in such an unusual claim.

Thank you for the discussion.

[jlisenbe]

Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for supporting what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.

You are employing an argument from silence which you claimed earlier was an ineffective strategy.

[dwashbur]

You mentioned the Sumerian epic poem but nothing about the Babylonians - you can always go back and see what you wrote. You seem to be saying that the Sumerian poem is a true example of a miraculous event occurring in ancient literature other than the New Testament. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that the "miracles" in that work of fiction are actual events. I sincerely hope I'm misreading you. We already have Jl believing in talking snakes from another piece of fiction.

I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature, as you and I agreed.

Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for supporting what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.

Correct. The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there. I frankly don't care who wrote them, though Luke does sort of obliquely identify himself and says he researched everything carefully. They were all composed within the lifetimes of the apostles, only the most "out there" scholars dispute that any more. Was some redaction done? Probably. But we do the same thing with the average newspaper, all good writings go through a similar process. It doesn't bring their veracity into question.

If I understand correctly, the miraculous parts of the gospels are the only parts that you really take issue with, the speeches, the travels, you're generally okay with that. Do I have that right?

Some questions are still hanging. In post #126, you seem to be saying the Jews knew of the resurrection which had been witnessed by the guards. That was to explain why they were so against the Christians, killing them, etc. Would you clarify what you meant?

The constant refrain that we see them shouting at the Christians was "stop proclaiming the resurrection under penalty of death." The most likely reason they would try to squelch the message is because they didn't have an answer to it. If they had known Jesus didn't rise, they could have simply found the body and paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem and the whole thing would have been over.
But they didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened. They simply said "Stop talking about it." The obvious question would be, why.

I'll try to track down those other posts and see about them. Things are kind of in a mess right now, we had a scuba diver die in front of us last night.

[jlisenbe]

The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there. I frankly don't care who wrote them, though Luke does sort of obliquely identify himself and says he researched everything carefully. They were all composed within the lifetimes of the apostles,

I'm just not following you on this. If they were composed within the lifetimes of the apostles, then why would it be doubted that the named individuals wrote them? I would think that would be an especially hard case to make with John, because of the many personal notes he included, and with Luke considering the connection with Acts which clearly seems to have been written by him. Perhaps you are saying that Matthew, for instance, dictated his account to a "secretary" of sorts?

How were they able to completely deceive individuals such as Papias and Irenaeus?

Very sorry to hear of the death you witnessed. Those are such shocking and tragic occasions.

[dwashbur]

The question of how anyone could know what the majority of mainstream scholars thought about this subject was left unanswered as was the question as to how four unnamed imposters could have written the four Gospels in the second century and gotten away with it.

You do realize that by the end of the first century there were dozens of "gospels" floating around, purporting to be from Peter, Thomas, Mary, Joe the Bartender, you name it. The church's job by the Nicean council was to determine which ones really came from authoritative sources, and which were the fabrication of someone's imagination. The gospels that we retained had the greatest claims to authorship by an apostle (Matthew, John) or a companion of an apostle (Mark, Luke). But the other spurious gospels are still out there and the Gnostics in particular continued to use them well into the fourth century.

How were they able to completely deceive individuals such as Papias and Irenaeus?

Who said anything about deceiving someone? That's your word, nobody else's. The only one early enough to count is Papias, and we don't have his actual writings. The earliest scholars did the best they could, and I have no problem with their conclusions that Matthew the reformed IRS agent, Mark companion of Paul and Peter, Luke the Physician and John Son of Thunder wrote them.
But I won't go to the stake for it.

[jlisenbe]

You do realize that by the end of the first century there were dozens of "gospels" floating around, purporting to be from Peter, Thomas, Mary, Joe the Bartender, you name it. The church's job by the Nicean council was to determine which ones really came from authoritative sources, and which were the fabrication of someone's imagination. The gospels that we retained had the greatest claims to authorship by an apostle (Matthew, John) or a companion of an apostle (Mark, Luke). But the other spurious gospels are still out there and the Gnostics in particular continued to use them well into the fourth century.

That's true to a point, but it's also true that only the four Gospels we have now were ever accepted by church leaders(Gnostics don't count for that). The three quotes I posted earlier certainly seem to show that to be the case. The four Gospels were quoted on many thousands of occasions by the church fathers. How often were the apocryphal gospels quoted?

But even with that understanding, why would that show that the four Gospels we have now were not written by the traditional authors?

Also not too sure how much I agree that there were dozens of purported Gospels in circulation by the end of the first century. The gospel of Thomas, for instance, has no certain date but could have been as late as 250. Most of the non-canonical gospels, as least as I understand it, have very little evidence surrounding them. I just think it's really a stretch to date them by the "dozens" prior to the end of the first century.

As to deception, this was your description of it. "Correct. The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there." So if Joe Schmoe wrote a gospel and attributed it to John, in what way would that not be deceptive, and massively deceptive at that? Now I get your point that the Gospels did not have names attached to them, so fair enough. It's just hard to imagine that you could have Papias and Irenaeus attributing the books to Matthew, Mark, and so forth if in fact that was not the case. So if the early church fathers never questioned it, then it's hard to imagine why we would want to now.

[Athos]

I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature, as you and I agreed.

As historians, surely we can rule out gods and goddesses and miracles depicted in works of fiction. Not knowing everything about nature hardly supports the belief that anything found in fiction is possibly true. I never agreed to such a wild surmise.

If I understand correctly, the miraculous parts of the gospels are the only parts that you really take issue with, the speeches, the travels, you're generally okay with that. Do I have that right?

Nope, you don't have that right. Not even close. You have not understood me correctly. I'm not sure where you even got that idea in the first place.

The only issue I have is my long-standing objection to the Gospel of Matthew saying that Jesus condemned to eternal torture in a fiery hell for all eternity all those who A) did not believe in him, B) were sinners, C) refused his message, or whatever the reason was as Jl tended to change it from time to time. My position is, and always has been, that that part of the Gospel had been altered or added or edited for reasons that the Christian community at the time thought necessary.

As for the resurrection, I asked what evidence there was for it after Jl claimed there was evidence for the resurrection. Again, I never stated either way about the truth of the resurrection. I only asked for the evidence. My religious beliefs are not important.

However, as to the Jesus comment on hell in Matthew, I categorically deny the truth of that. That is the only position I have ever offered about what I believe in the Gospels.

Next was your reply to my question of why you seemed to be saying the Jews believed the resurrection had been witnessed by the guards.

The constant refrain that we see them shouting at the Christians was "stop proclaiming the resurrection under penalty of death." The most likely reason they would try to squelch the message is because they didn't have an answer to it. If they had known Jesus didn't rise, they could have simply found the body and paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem and the whole thing would have been over.
But they didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened. They simply said "Stop talking about it." The obvious question would be, why.

Yes, why? I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?

I'll try to track down those other posts and see about them.

Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle. Your post #151. My post # 155. Thanks.

[jlisenbe]

However, as to the Jesus comment on hell in Matthew, I categorically deny the truth of that. That is the only position I have ever offered about what I believe in the Gospels.

Actually, that is merely a comment about what you DON'T believe. That's been a complain of mine for some time. Getting you to state what you DO believe is quite an undertaking.

[Athos]

Actually, that is merely a comment about what you DON'T believe. That's been a complain of mine for some time. Getting you to state what you DO believe is quite an undertaking.

My religious beliefs are not important.

[jlisenbe]

I beg to differ. You love to ridicule and trash the religious beliefs of others, and yet don't care to offer yours up for examination. Seems like a double-standard at work.

[Athos]

I beg to differ. You love to ridicule and trash the religious beliefs of others, and yet don't care to offer yours up for examination. Seems like a double-standard at work.

That's a base canard! I never ridiculed anyone in my entire life!

Btw, I have a question for you:

When you talk to snakes, do they talk back? In English?

[jlisenbe]

I never ridiculed anyone in my entire life!

Btw, I have a question for you:

When you talk to snakes, do they talk back? In English?

Bingo. At least you admit it. It's your schtick to be sure. "Fundamentalists" and "white evangelicals" are some of your favorite targets. And yet all the while there is one person who is conspicuously missing when it comes to having the backbone to put his beliefs on the line. Wonder why?

[dwashbur]

As historians, surely we can rule out gods and goddesses and miracles depicted in works of fiction. Not knowing everything about nature hardly supports the belief that anything found in fiction is possibly true.

But if we don't know everything about nature, including what may or may not lie beyond it, we can't make such an absolute statement. We don't know if they encountered such beings or not, the current bias against such things notwithstanding. It doesn't have any solid basis to stand on except the current trends toward anti-supernatural things. There's no "surely" about it. That's a presupposition.

The only issue I have is my long-standing objection to the Gospel of Matthew saying that Jesus condemned to eternal torture in a fiery hell for all eternity all those who A) did not believe in him, B) were sinners, C) refused his message, or whatever the reason was as Jl tended to change it from time to time. My position is, and always has been, that that part of the Gospel had been altered or added or edited for reasons that the Christian community at the time thought necessary.

When Jesus or anyone else described hell, they were trying to use familiar imagery to describe the indescribable. But that's the one thing they all agree on: Jesus is the watershed of history. One is either with him or against him. But even he qualified that when he said "Whoever isn't against us is on our side." That tells me there's as much latitude as possible to give everyone a chance. Jesus never condemned anyone to hell, people do it to themselves.

In any case, I appreciate the correction.

As for the resurrection, I asked what evidence there was for it after Jl claimed there was evidence for the resurrection. Again, I never stated either way about the truth of the resurrection. I only asked for the evidence.

I gave you some.

Yes, why? I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?

Not in the sense that Jesus said to believe in him. They couldn't deny it, that was their problem. They couldn't find any basis to deny it or claim it was false, and they never did. As recently as 1985, a Rabbi looked me in the eye and said "Okay, he rose. So what?" Inability to deny isn't the same as believing approvingly, and I don't claim they approved of any of it.

Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle.

I'll try to do that in detail tomorrow in a separate post. It's been a long day, and most of us here are still reeling from last night's horrible event.

[Athos]

from Athos
Thanks for posting it. It was very interesting.

from DW
I confess I was hoping for a bit more..... ;)

Not sure what you mean by this reply. Did you want me to accept it was a miracle based only on your say-so? I have no doubt you believe it was a miracle, but more than your belief is needed to establish its truth as a miracle.

But if we don't know everything about nature, including what may or may not lie beyond it, we can't make such an absolute statement. We don't know if they encountered such beings or not, there's no "surely" about it, that's a presupposition

If I understand you, the following is possible:

This girl said that the wolf led her astray while she was on the way to her grandmother. She continued, saying that the wolf ate her granny and dressed up as that old lady, and she really believed he was her granny when she arrived. Then she was eaten herself by that wolf. She was saved by a passing hunter who cut her and her granny out of the belly.

Can you believe this story is possible because it's a presupposition that has never been seen in nature – a speaking wolf, who is able to swallow a grown woman and a girl in whole without killing them?

Another example is Zeno's Paradox. This states that an arrow shot at a target must first travel one-half the distance, then one-half the remaining distance, and so on forever one-half the distance every time so that the arrow will never reach its target. No matter how infinitesimal, there is always one-half the distance remaining.

This is similar to your belief that we can't make absolute statements that are always correct since we don't know everything about nature. The solutions to Zeno are many which I will leave to those interested to find and read them. My favorite is GK Chesterton's who, debunking a similar paradox, struck his toe against a table, yelled ouch, and said, “”Therefore, I disprove it”.

The point of both stories is that common sense can defeat hard-to-disprove theories that seem incontrovertible but really aren't. One last thing: the Judge tells the jury what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. The judge instructs the jury that any doubt must be reasonable, not a philosophical or semantic possible doubt. Otherwise, no criminal would ever be convicted of anything.

When Jesus or anyone else described hell, they were trying to use familiar imagery to describe the indescribable. ........................... One is either with him or against him. But even he qualified that when he said "Whoever isn't against us is on our side." That tells me there's as much latitude as possible to give everyone a chance. Jesus never condemned anyone to hell, people do it to themselves.

If I understand this paragraph correctly, you are saying that Jesus agreed that hell exists, is indescribable, and is a place of punishment of horrible torture in fire for all eternity - Matthew 25:46. But he did not personally send anyone to hell. People do it themselves.

Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.

from Athos
I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here about the Jewish elders. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?

reply from DW
Not in the sense that Jesus said to believe in him. They couldn't deny it, that was their problem. They couldn't find any basis to deny it or claim it was false, and they never did. As recently as 1985, a Rabbi looked me in the eye and said "Okay, he rose. So what?" Inability to deny isn't the same as believing approvingly, and I don't claim they approved of any of it.

I agree that denial is not the same as agreeing. But the question is begged. What in the world did the Rabbi mean when he said sarcastically, “Okay, he rose, so what”. It reads like he was NOT agreeing.

But let's say he WAS agreeing. Did he accept rising from the dead was an everyday event? Did he then believe Jesus was not your everyday human being? Where did the conversation go from there?

[dwashbur]

Not sure what you mean by this reply. Did you want me to accept it was a miracle based only on your say-so? I have no doubt you believe it was a miracle, but more than your belief is needed to establish its truth as a miracle.

Not at all. I was hoping to hear more of your take on what happened.

This girl said that the wolf led her astray while she was on the way to her grandmother. She continued, saying that the wolf ate her granny and dressed up as that old lady, and she really believed he was her granny when she arrived. Then she was eaten herself by that wolf. She was saved by a passing hunter who cut her and her granny out of the belly.

Can you believe this story is possible because it's a presupposition that has never been seen in nature – a speaking wolf, who is able to swallow a grown woman and a girl in whole without killing them?

Bad example. Nobody ever claimed that story was true. Deliberate fiction is a different matter and doesn't really apply here.

Another example is Zeno's Paradox. This states that an arrow shot at a target must first travel one-half the distance, then one-half the remaining distance, and so on forever one-half the distance every time so that the arrow will never reach its target. No matter how infinitesimal, there is always one-half the distance remaining.

Zeno was playing logic games that may or may not have any actual basis in the real world of physics, so it doesn't apply here, either.

Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.

I don't suggest that they do. The first three chapters of Romans set out the principle that everyone is judged on the amount of information they have. No information, no harsh judgment. Exactly how that works, I don't know. I'm not in charge of it.

I agree that denial is not the same as agreeing. But the question is begged. What in the world did the Rabbi mean when he said sarcastically, “Okay, he rose, so what”. It reads like he was NOT agreeing.

But let's say he WAS agreeing. Did he accept rising from the dead was an everyday event? Did he then believe Jesus was not your everyday human being? Where did the conversation go from there?

It didn't. He said he could acknowledge it, but the conversation ended there because he didn't care. And since he was the professor and I was the student, and we were in a class session at the time,* I didn't push it.

*While in seminary I took several extension courses through the University of Denver Center for Judaic Studies. That was where this conversation happened.

[jlisenbe]

The first three chapters of Romans set out the principle that everyone is judged on the amount of information they have. No information, no harsh judgment. Exactly how that works, I don't know.

Well said, and it is supported in a number of other places such as Jesus stating, 'And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.'" Now how all of that works in the context of an eternal hell, I have no idea. But I'm not going to reject it simply because I might not like or understand it.