Modern myths about the Gospels debunked

[TX-Beau]

Simply not true. The Titanic testimony is unreliable to the extent that it contradicts itself. But you can't face the possibility that inconsistent Biblical testimony is similarly unreliable. You have to stand on your head and argue that the inconsistencies aren't really inconsistencies because leaving out material particulars isn't inconsistent, etc. The issue is not whether the Titanic sank or whether Christ died, it's the "how of it" and whether the testimony can be trusted.

I think I agree with this but don't quite follow your reasoning, What I'm getting is that inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts of an event are evidence of inconsistencies, not evidence for or against the reality or non-reality of the event per se?

 

[Spensed]

^Better expressed than I said it. Yes that's my point.

The issue is, for example, how the Titanic sank, when it broke up, etc. Now there is other evidence on the point from a scientific analysis of the remains, etc., but on the eye-witness testimony, I doubt that many historians would have a problem acknowledging that it is inconsistent and, hence without more, possibly unreliable. Now let's hear the same acknowledgment from the Biblical historians with respect to inconsistent testimony there.

They can't bring themselves to do it, because despite the protestations to the contrary, the Bible is a special text to them, the word of God and, for reasons I don't follow, that has been consistent and free from error. I've had this argument here before. Even slavery is rationalized and seen as a pre-cursor to the end of slavery.

Religious mythologizing poses as history and the believers, looking to ground their faith in fact, just lap it up. I just don't buy it.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ Uhhh... I never said they didn't. But in this case it's quite obvious.

What's obvious in this case is that he's setting aside his faith in favor of scholarship. His position would be heresy to many, many members of his own church body.

The Jesus Seminar doesn't even pretend to follow historical scholarship methods.

 

[Kulindahr]

Simply not true. The Titanic testimony is unreliable to the extent that it contradicts itself. But you can't face the possibility that inconsistent Biblical testimony is similarly unreliable. You have to stand on your head and argue that the inconsistencies aren't really inconsistencies because leaving out material particulars isn't inconsistent, etc. The issue is not whether the Titanic sank or whether Christ died, it's the "how of it" and whether the testimony can be trusted.

There's no "standing on your head" involved. We do the very same thing he's talking about today; all you have to do is read different news reports about the same event to know that. He's merely pointing out that what the Gospel authors did was the same thing anyone telling about something does.

Again, simply not true. I didn't say anything about vets being old. The presenter was arguing that testimony recorded 35 to 65 years after the event is still reliable and current eye witness testimony. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate that is nonsense and that point is compounded by the very small number of WWII vets in his audience.

Historians use testimony from later than that all the time. There are projects to go get the eye-witness testimony of WWII vets on record while they're still alive, just as there were projects to collect songs of the Civil War from surviving vets of that war.

The number of vets is irrelevant -- the only thing relevant is that there were in fact eyewitnesses still around, still able to tell how it was.

And as he showed, by the standards of scholarship in doing history, 35 to 65 years is quite good for confidence.

The speaker doesn't treat the Biblical texts as historical documents. Where is his caution and skepticism about, on his own case, 35 to 65 year old recollections? Sure some inconsistencies could be explained by additional commentary on the same event, but the additional commentary could also be evidence of inconsistency or poetic license. His agenda is very clear and the same kind of faith motivated apologia never pass muster with respect to non-religious historical events.

He's treating the Gospels the exact same way other ancient documents are treated. If the standards you seem to want applied were used, we would have to abandon all claim to know what Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or any other such figure from before about, oh, the invention of the printing press, actually said.

Why, when documents we believe to be from Plato tell about what Socrates had to say, do we not firmly admonish readers that Plato may well have been making it up? The same could be asked about the majority of ancient figures; in comparison to them, the Gospels come very well certified indeed.

To the extent that the Gospels purport to be the word of God, obviously, they are special and it would reasonable to expect them to be of a higher standard that an ancient text time bound by its own historical context and literary traditions. Even the speaker realizes he can't make that obvious case. So he is left polishing up clearly undivine material to fit in with his beliefs.

Why should they be "special"? or to a "higher standard"? They are the Word of God because He inspired the writers, not because He dictated the content.

The real irony here is that if they did match some "higher standard", that would be used to argue that they were fakes.

Same kind of thing that one has been reading on these boards for ever. It would be much better to acknowledge the Gospel inconsistencies than deny them. They don't actually affect the trust of God's word, if one want to see the texts as such.

So why are you jumping on him for doing the very thing you say "would be much better"? After reading this, I'm not convinced you even really watched except perhaps to find things to pick apart (good fundamentalist approach, there).

Well, you're hardly going to see them in a cloud of faith.

Faith demands evidence. I arrived at my faith through scholarship, and I don't throw it out now that I've arrived. "Test and prove" is what the scripture says -- one of the reasons the Bible stands out as the best candidate for divine revelation. "Examine all things" is the way St. Paul put it, and that's how I approached the Gospels, though I didn't have the benefit of nearly so much evidence as he has.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think I agree with this but don't quite follow your reasoning, What I'm getting is that inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts of an event are evidence of inconsistencies, not evidence for or against the reality or non-reality of the event per se?

That's exactly what the speaker said.

Spensed is just looking for ways to attack the guy -- even though he's saying the very same thing the speaker did, when he says it it justifies his opposition... somehow.

 

[Spensed]

There's no "standing on your head" involved. We do the very same thing he's talking about today; all you have to do is read different news reports about the same event to know that. He's merely pointing out that what the Gospel authors did was the same thing anyone telling about something does.

The issue is that, in other cases, where there are material omissions or inconsistencies, historians would at least admit of the possibility that the evidence may not be reliable, look to other evidence, etc., etc. You and the lecturer here can't permit that because of your belief-based pre-conceptions. So, instead of living with the doubt or accepting the uncertainly, he glosses over the inconsistencies as what people do or as literary conventions. That is standing on your head and dodging the central issue that much of what he his talking about is at best second or third hand recollection. Why not just be honest and accept the doubt and uncertainty?

Historians use testimony from later than that all the time. There are projects to go get the eye-witness testimony of WWII vets on record while they're still alive, just as there were projects to collect songs of the Civil War from surviving vets of that war.

That's true. But then reliability of the testimony is an integral part of its use. 35 to 65 years(the best case scenario) with no contemporaneous record is a long time. The testimony is recorded by obvious proponents of the person being written about so these are no historically neutral or objective accounts. One needs only analogize to Scientology to see the cleansing and mythologizing process that has gone on with L. Ron Hubbard and that is in an era of visual and electronic records.

The number of vets is irrelevant -- the only thing relevant is that there were in fact eyewitnesses still around, still able to tell how it was.

And as he showed, by the standards of scholarship in doing history, 35 to 65 years is quite good for confidence.

Not, if all you're relying on is eye-witness testimony, which inconsistent, and which comes via partisan conduits. I am not asserting that none of it historically accurate, but that it is open to a good measure of question, doubt and uncertainty.

You and the lecturer are all too ready to jump on any rationalization that endorses the story line you want to believe in.

He's treating the Gospels the exact same way other ancient documents are treated. If the standards you seem to want applied were used, we would have to abandon all claim to know what Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or any other such figure from before about, oh, the invention of the printing press, actually said.

Why, when documents we believe to be from Plato tell about what Socrates had to say, do we not firmly admonish readers that Plato may well have been making it up? The same could be asked about the majority of ancient figures; in comparison to them, the Gospels come very well certified indeed.

Simply not true. The Gospels do not "come very well certified indeed". They are clouded in historical uncertainly as to when they were written, who wrote them, their propagandizing intent, etc., etc. Similar issues do, indeed, arise with respect to other ancients text and most historians have no problem in accepting the unknown elements surrounding them. If there are reasons to question what some historical figure is alleged to have said, these are explored without pre-conceiving the outcome.

In the case of the Gospels, you and the lecturer cannot allow of the possibility that the inconsistencies may show that the stories are made up or an self-serving narrative created by believers. Am I mistaken? Can you allow of the possibility that the Gospels may be materially inaccurate in a number respects?

Why should they be "special"? or to a "higher standard"? They are the Word of God because He inspired the writers, not because He dictated the content.

"They are the Word of God..." but they aren't "special" or of a "higher standard". If the Gospels are the word of God, of course, they are special and of a higher standard. Inspired through the writers, they are still the word of God, not some ancient shopping list.

The real irony here is that if they did match some "higher standard", that would be used to argue that they were fakes.

That's a cop out. If the Gospels were free of inconsistencies and timeless in their morality, they would be what one expect from a divinely inspired source. If they are just another ancient text, with it's time-bound literary and moral conventions, than that's what it is. I don't happen to think that it need be perfect to have been inspired by God, if he exists, but that is the spin you and the lecturer are trying to provide.

So why are you jumping on him for doing the very thing you say "would be much better"? After reading this, I'm not convinced you even really watched except perhaps to find things to pick apart (good fundamentalist approach, there).

And I'm not convinced you understood what you watched. The lecturer in not accepting the Gospel warts an' all. That's what I'm saying it would be better for him to do. Like you have in the past, he's acting as an apologist for the possible inconsistencies and trying to explain them away in terms of perhaps some writers said more than others or as literary devices, etc. I don't think one needs to do that. You and the lecturer you presented us with clearly do because your belief precludes you from accepting a Gospel filled with error and inconsistency.

Faith demands evidence. I arrived at my faith through scholarship, and I don't throw it out now that I've arrived. "Test and prove" is what the scripture says -- one of the reasons the Bible stands out as the best candidate for divine revelation. "Examine all things" is the way St. Paul put it, and that's how I approached the Gospels, though I didn't have the benefit of nearly so much evidence as he has.

Faith does not demand evidence. If one believes in these things, it is a function of God's grace. Many people with libraries of evidence lack faith. Others with no evidence have it in abundance.

You are talking about belief and I don't need to argue with how to got to your belief. I'm just pointing out to you that papering over the flaws in your evidence isn't necessary and is, as you've seen from how people respond to your points on this board, unconvincing to others who don't happen to share your belief.

You parade a faith based partisan lecture as historical analysis. It's a deception in my view because it denies the possiblity of coming to any conclusions inconsistent the belief it seeks to promote. It's a simple as that.

 

[Jacquemar]

The Gospels have inconsistencies. They weren't even begun to be written until 30 - 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have lived. They were written by followers, not historians. Historians have every reason to question their historicity and credibility. DEAL with it and move on!

 

[Kulindahr]

The Gospels have inconsistencies. They weren't even begun to be written until 30 - 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have lived. They were written by followers, not historians. Historians have every reason to question their historicity and credibility. DEAL with it and move on!

Spensed is advancing arguments the speaker took care of, and is so set in his position he isn't interested in allowing neutral scholarship. He, along with others, is applying an entirely different standard to the Gospels -- and it's pretty much only on those other standards that there is any reason to "question their historicity and credibility".

I really wish the lecture on the historicity of the Gospels I once heard from an atheist was available online, but it was given a good number of years before there was a Web. His conclusion as a historian of ancient writings was that Gospels were written down at most forty years after Jesus' crucifixion, and anyone holding out for later just had an axe to grind. He didn't care if they were true or not -- he said he wouldn't believe in God anyway -- he was just interested in whether they reported the life if Jesus accurately, and said that be the standards of the time they did.

That's how I "deal with it" -- from the basis of scholarship. And on the grounds of scholarship, if I can state with any confidence that Socrates said such-and-such as is reported, I have even more confidence that the Gospels got it right as well.

 

[Spensed]

^It is not "neutral scholarship" if it cannot acknowledge the possibility of error or inaccuracy in decades' old eye-witness testimony, which differs on its face.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^The Gospels were not "eyewitness testimony."

It appears Matthew's accounts were drawn from written and oral sources, including the Gospel of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings that scholars have designated Q, a lost Gospel that was also available to the author of Luke.

It's (The Gospel of Mark) author was a Greek-speaking Christian who had heard and possibly read accounts of Jesus' life and death and created a kind of biographical account of his own in order to proclaim the "good news of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God."

Like the author of Matthew, "Luke" appears to have had access to both the Gospel of Mark and the lost collection of sayings designated Q; from these and other sources he constructed his own distinctive portrayal of Jesus.

The author was clearly a Greek-speaking Christian; he evidently lived outside of Palestine. As one of his sources, he claims to have used the testimony of one of Jesus' closest followers (19:35; 21:24), whom he never names but calls the "disciple whom Jesus lover" (21:7).

Mattew: 80 - 85 c.e.
Mark: 30 - 40 years after Jesus' death, probably around 70 c.e.
Luke: 80 - 85 c.e.
John: 90 - 95 c.e.

Source: The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press.

If you have a problem with this information, please contact Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Professor and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. DO NOT yell at me, I'm only relaying the message.

 

[Spensed]

^ Noted. A fortiori, it is not "neutral scholarship" if it cannot acknowledge the possibility of error or inaccuracy in decades' old testimony, which differs on its face.

 

[bankside]

He's treating the Gospels the exact same way other ancient documents are treated. If the standards you seem to want applied were used, we would have to abandon all claim to know what Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or any other such figure from before about, oh, the invention of the printing press, actually said.

Why, when documents we believe to be from Plato tell about what Socrates had to say, do we not firmly admonish readers that Plato may well have been making it up? The same could be asked about the majority of ancient figures; in comparison to them, the Gospels come very well certified indeed.

Well it's interesting that you should mention Plato. Why, when we have reliable records that Plato wanted an invented religion to be presented as truth by a guardian class (priesthood) to control society, do we not believe it happened thereafter as he set out?

Faith demands evidence.

I'm delighted to hear you say that. I was worried it required some kind of obscure revelation. Some people talk about it as if it is a gift. But if it is a matter of evidence, we should come to consensus shortly.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ About Plato.

Few scholars (according to the Hackett edition that I have of Plato's works) believe that Plato accurately represented Socrates' beliefs. Neither did Xenophon; the question arising from the three very different portrayals of Socrates and his beliefs presented by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. IOW we are admonished to read Plato with caution.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well it's interesting that you should mention Plato. Why, when we have reliable records that Plato wanted an invented religion to be presented as truth by a guardian class (priesthood) to control society, do we not believe it happened thereafter as he set out?

Possibly because astute readers of Plato recognized his hypocrisy in the Republic, because his entire system was predicated on "certain lies", to be told by philosophers, whereas when he talks about being a philosopher he insists that no philosopher may ever engage in lies, because to do so betrays poor thinking, and any system based on lies will fail.

But more likely because Plato had little influence on the development of the mixed society of the Roman Empire, especially in Jewish areas.

I'm delighted to hear you say that. I was worried it required some kind of obscure revelation. Some people talk about it as if it is a gift. But if it is a matter of evidence, we should come to consensus shortly.

Faith is a gift, and does demand evidence. Faith without evidence is self-delusion. But faith receives from revelation, though the more "obscure" that revelation, the less likely it is to be valid.

 

[bankside]

Possibly because astute readers of Plato recognized his hypocrisy in the Republic, because his entire system was predicated on "certain lies", to be told by philosophers, whereas when he talks about being a philosopher he insists that no philosopher may ever engage in lies, because to do so betrays poor thinking, and any system based on lies will fail.

...and why don't we believe that he's right about that too...

 

[opinterph]

I would enjoy reading a transcript of Dr. Licona’s presentation. The first 5-minutes of the video make me think he is part thespian. And that makes me want to know to whom I am listening.

Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University.

 

[Jacquemar]

"...an American New Testament scholar, Christian apologist and historian." Well that explains why his scholarship isn't in any way "neutral."