There are always very good discussions and debates here dealing with the authorship
of the NT Gospels.

It seems to be a common conviction in Christianity that the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts. And as eyewitness accounts of events in the life and teachings
of Jesus, the actual authorship has very little impact on the validity of the Books themselves, in other words the records are what counts, not how or by whom, they were written.

My question is are the Gospels valid records? Are they reasonable enough in content, to establish credability?
In a court of law, heresay is inadmissable
as evidence. And it is a fact that the gospels are all based on heresay.

But, heresay aside, has the early church established their own credability with regard to the transposition of the Gospels.
Has the information recorded been embellished
enough to disqualify the writers as being
honest and objective?

In reading some comments of researchers, there have been some interesting facts that
are hard to deny as having a detrimental effect on the church fathers and their presentation of the Gospels.

Some quotes from historians, and early church fathers indicate that the recorded words are suspect as to being truthful.
There exists doubt about the overall moral character of the church fathers themselves.

Lactantius wrote: " Among those who seek power and gain from religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it".Quoted by C. Middleton, Misc.
works of Conyers Middleton,D.D. 1752

Hermas wrote: "O Lord,I never spoke a true word in my life,I have always affirmed a lie as truth to all men, and no man contradicted
me; instead, they all gave credit to my works". Visions of Hermas vol.2 c.3

Gregory of Nazanzius the Bishop of Caesarea
said," A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
Quoted by Volney, The Ruins 1872.

Angustine of Hippo had made the statement that, " It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed".

Some may argue that Angustine was referring to the depth of conversation when speaking to uneducated people.
But the comment still calls into question the honesty of information distributed by the church.

Eusebius actually confessed that he suppressed anything that would be a disgrace to early Christianity.
Ecclesiastical History vol. 8,c.21
This in itself could be a failsafe device against false information, but it points out that supression and deception was a part of the early church's approach to the Gospels.

Paul said"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" KJV Romans 3-7

If the founding Fathers were of impecable character, we would expect them to be truthful in all things, but the actual writings of some of these historians and founders leave me wondering if these people had the capacity to realize truth from fiction.

Augustine says that he went to Ethopia to preach. While there, he encountered men and women with no heads, and two big eyes in their breasts!
He also says that he saw people with one big eye in the middle of their foreheads.
This from Augustine Sermon 37.

Eusebius says he wrote Jesus a letter, and recieved an answer, in ecclesiastical history vol 1 c. 13.

Gibbon in the History of Christianity, says that Eusebius told of martyrs who were devoured by wild animals and when the beasts were strangled, the martyrs were found in their stomachs alive.

Gibbon also says that "Orthodox theologians were tempted by the assurance of impunity, to
compose fictions which must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery.
They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity".

The point is, there were fraudulent documents,
embellishments of semi-truths, and third and forth person testimonies everywhere in the early church.

How did the Catholic Church verify the validity of the Gospels and establish the authorship of each book in an era when no
facts could be trusted, when it was known that there were many pious frauds being circulated, and the writers of the time period could not tell fact from fiction?

What was the deterimining factors involved with the canonization of the NT Gospels included in the Bible as we see it today?

I understand the conditions that were used to qualified books to be included,but who could actually prove the conditions?
What made one outlandish story more believable than another outlandish story?

Clearly, as history moves forward it is apparent that you cannot use a myth, to prove the validity of a myth.

I have read that the council at Carthage
took a vote. They took a vote on which books were to be included in the Gospels.
And that the determining factor had nothing to do with the actual content of the written
works.

As with any historical work there are facts and stories related that cannot be proven with the information that is available today.
And yes, in historic literature some occurences and statements must be accepted simply on heresay evidence.

I did not know until just recently that the pic of the US Marines raising the flag on Iwo
was staged, and did not actually happen.
The picture that has been seen by millions,
for years and years was staged by a reporter
and was not the actual flag raising.

Who's to say that the Gospels of the NT, may contain untruths and STAGED events?
Maybe some of you theologians or even non-theists could shed some light on this subject?

Thanks

I don't believe that the early church fathers were infallible or even necessarily correct. However, they are a valuable source for information, especially when their material is compared with other church fathers. However, I don't believe all, or even many of them, lied or intentionally told fibs to bolster faith. I think your ideas are based on an incomplete understanding of the background and theology behind some of their statements.

Finally, I don't think you intended to misrepresent anything, but some of your information is incorrect or lacks a true understanding within the context of the church father's works.

One example is your statement:
"Eusebius says he wrote Jesus a letter, and recieved an answer, in ecclesiastical history vol 1 c. 13."

This is incorrect. Eusebius is recounting a story told to him about a certain King Abgar who sent a letter to Jesus after hearing about all the miraculous things Jesus had done (i.e. during Jesus' lifetime).

I think that in order to understand what Christianity is all about, one must read with an open mind and not try to immediately find all the perceived inconsistencies. Their are problems inherent in all world-views.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited July 04, 2001).]

Thank you for your response Ish.
Usually, with most people they read and form opinions on facts that can be quantified and qualified.

The question is not so much if the material contains truth, or not.

I am sure that there was and is basic truth
in the records of antiquity, and I am also convinced that many of those early writers
believed they had written information that was well within the accepted standard of probability.

But as with all eyewitness accounts, even in courtrooms of today, the truth is mostly in the eye and mind of the individual.
And it is seldom that two eyewitness accounts will be related in the same way.

Also in the translation of material from Greek, Hebrew, Italian, English, or any of the worlds languages, we must be aware that language changes as the society enlarges and becomes more complex. The spoken word is localized and changed to fit the community, and the pace and style of life of the time period.

In one area of a country, dialects can be so different that they do not even sound like the original language. An example is the
urban E-Bonics that do not even resemble english.

Since there are no remaining original manuscripts of the Gospels, and no remaining population who would have spoken the same language of the writers, how do we know if any of the documents were ever translated correctly?


Language is a representation of the time and place. Even in our time period, with all the linguistic experts we have we cannot agree
what the proper translations were.

And I am quite sure that 2000 years from now
if anyone would compare the written words of english with the actual spoken word we use daily, they would not be able to decipher the true meanings of words and phrases, as they were used by the writers and in particular the uneducated masses that would be the most prone to use slang.

So what makes anyone think that the words of
the scribes, that were recorded from the spoken words of the population, stories passed by word of mouth generation to generation, can actually be translated properly?

What is more likely is that the scribes inserted their own personal opinions and stories with the direction of the power source, the commission of the Catholic church. And who would know if the actual
stories and records of events could be trusted?

No one.

Except the authorities who commissioned the translations and correlation of the original documents.
wolf

Using the analogy of the court case, the case would have to be thrown out. You have four witnesses and four different stories. Who went to the tomb? Who met them there? What were Jesus's last words? They can't even agree on who Joseph's ancestors were!

Actually its worse than heresay. If the Gospels were just heresay, it would be an honor bestowed upon them. Instead; they are heresay, coupled with absurdities, false claims and awful incoherence. Absurdity? One can look at the apostles reaction to Jesus being arrested. They all run away. Somehow, we are to believe that their witnessing all the countless miracles that Jesus did wasn't inspiration enough to believe in him, but... when Jesus raises from the dead, appears to them and finally goes into Heaven, they follow his teachings to the death. So the tons of other supernatural stuff that happened to Jesus, to the point of God himself speaking out loud of his aproval of Jesus, wasn't enough to convince them that he was right, but that one lil' added miracle of ascending into Heaven apparently was. Basically, such a story is absurd.

False claims? Everything from Herod's slaughter of the infants to the 'star' guiding the wise men to the darkness after Jesus' death would fall into that category.

Incoherence? The mess of contradictions regarding the empty tomb story is more than enough.

It should also be added that the Gospels earliest plausible dates of conception have been estimated at probably some 20-30 years after Jesus' death, though 40-60 years is much more probable.

So, take four absurdity riddled, contradictory, historically flawed documents about some heresay that some superstitious fisherman instigated, at bare minimum, 20 years ago at least, and most probably 40 years ago or more, couple them with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims of the supernatural, and present them in a court of law as somehow being evidence for the greatest discovery in the history of the world. Such a person would either be laughed out or dragged out and promptly put into a padded cell, just for being idiotic enough to consider such evidence as even worthy of being taken seriously.
Hell no.
It doesn't matter, since the original writers themselves have been disqualified as being honest and objective.

I think that in order to understand what Christianity is all about, one must read with an open mind and not try to immediately find all the perceived inconsistencies. Their are problems inherent in all world-views.

Ish

Well, seeing as how a large portion of the freethinkers/critics of Christianity here are ex-Christians and spent many years not only blindly believing in Christianity, but trying to make rational sense out of its teachings throughout their period of transition from Christian to freethinker (I include myself among the ranks of such people), I think your statement isn't exactly breaking new ground.
Yes, there are. There are also moral problems with all people in some form or another (nobody is absolutely perfect), but that does not erase the different moral flaws between a few average law abiding citizens and, say, the different moral flaws between law abiding citizens when compared with axe murderers and rapists. And neither do the minor pot holes in freethought compare to the Imbrium Basin-overshadowing craters in Christianity.

I also find it very interesting that Rev.Taylor in the "Diegesis", quotes a statement made by Victor of Tunis in 506 AD.

(I understand that many theologians discredit
anything from the Diegesis)

"Messala V.C. Consule,Constantinopili,
jubente Anastasio Imperatore,sancta evangelia
tanquam ab idiotis evangelistis composita,
reprehenduntur et emendantur".

The Illustrious Messala by the command of the
Emperor Anastasius,the holy gospels, as having been written by idiot evangelists,
are hereby censured and corrected.

Not being a scholar,and without being able to verify the information, to me it would seem by this decree, the Gospels were modified into a form more acceptable to Anastasius.

So, the Gospels we see today may have been
modified, and therefore could be suspect as to the original content.
Unless we had the original works, we can never be sure that the gospel accounts werent drastically changed into something very different from the accounts of the followers of Jesus.

Most theologians conceed that the named authors were not the actual writers.
The Jesus Seminars stated that fully 85% of all statements recorded in the NT, attributed to Jesus, were fraudulent, "he never said it".

But if you ask the average christian, they
would say that everything in the Bible is true.

"Faith"

Of course the Bible was modified at times throughout history. The particular modifications that you refer to happened relatively late and many documents earlier than the 6th century have been discovered.

Learning about New Testament Textual Criticism will help you evaluate any concerns you may have with modifications of the text thoughout history. It is evident that certain lines of transmission (not transposition) were relatively free from serious modifications over periods of 100s of years, such as the Alexandrian textual family.

I believe that I reflect the ideas of many scholars today when I say that even with the textual variants in existence today, Christian theology has not been affected in any major way. The majority of textual variants can be attributed to scribal errors.

I don't believe that most "theologians" conceed this. Do you have a source?

The Jesus Seminar does not speak for the majority of New Testament scholars. As a matter of fact, they are pretty far left in my opinion. Check out the thread in this forum labeled "Jesus Seminar" that I started. By the way, they have yet to produce a critical edition of the Greek that underlies their version of the New Testament. Even then they will need to support their choice of variant readings (which is poor in my opinion).

I suppose it depends on how you see things. Every gospel writer did not necessarily record the exact words of Jesus which is obvious because they vary ever so slightly in reporting them. However, that does not mean that the words they put in Jesus' mouth do not reflect the sense of what he said.

I believe the Bible is true, yes. Are there possibly a few bobbles? Maybe. Do those bobbles matter much? Not that I have seen...

The point that I keep trying to get at is that it seems as if you only want to find perceived problems with Christianity. Instead of reading to find problems, read to see and understand the overall concept of what Christianity is about.

Contrary to CLB's beliefs, there are many who have studied the Bible in depth and still believe. I and others I know are living proof and honest in our beliefs.

It's easy to attack perceived weaknesses in another belief system but much harder to try to understand that belief system. After all, I don't have much faith in subjective morality which is what I believe every atheist must admit to having. I love it when one finally discovers that there is nothing inherently wrong with murder within the context of subjective morality. As a matter of fact, there is no definite right or wrong...

Ish

Yes, Ish I agree that if one is looking to find problems there are many, I also agree
to an extent that the actual text is probably
not the basis for a Christian's belief in
Jesus Christ and his work.

I dont think it is necessary for me to quote sources verifing that Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John were not written by the named authors.

As far as the Jesus Seminars, they have very little information that is not already been hacked by theologians and scholars over and over. And so they become redundant.

What is very interesting to me has to do with the level of education and actual knowledge that many Christians do not have,
about their own belief system.

Example: After being raised in a good Christian home, with good Christian parents.
Spending every Sunday in sunday school and
"preachin" as we in the Bible belt refer to it.

Actually receiving an acknowledgement from the Presbytery for 15 years perfect attendence.

After being a member of the Choir and doing vocal work for several churches in my home town, as a gospel singer.

After spending two years in a special program preparing for the ministry at a Catholic University, Belmont Abbey College.

And eventually being drawn by marriage into
Mormonism and attaining the "Priesthood".

It suddenly dawned on me one day, that I knew nothing about the historic "Bible".

I had never read one contrary view. I had never asked the question "who said so?"

Strange isnt it? I knew what had been pounded into my head by the clergy.
I understood what the religious doctrines were, and I could quote verses with the best of them.

But as far as understanding the birth and the subsequent growth of Christianity, and the historic factors involved in the establishment of the Faith, I knew nothing.

I only knew what the Iconic Representatives
of Christianity wanted me to know.
What was spoon fed to me for over half my life.

This in itself is very common. There are very few Christians who know anything about the origins and the actual history of the Christian movement.

There is only a handfull of Christians who can tell you about Mithra.
There are very few that can look for and find information by subject in the CE., especially protestants.

I have yet to find anyone other than in this forum who know who Rev. Taylor was and what he wrote and why.

Anyway, it is still up to me to make some kind of effort to understand why these things were not taught in religious gatherings, Churches, theology classes and Bible study.

Many Ministers cannot sit and discuss intelligently the actual differences between
the Ancient Hebrew texts "the Torah" and the Christian Old Testament and explain why there is a totally different interpretation
of the same books.

I surely could not, and that is the reason for my exploration and quest for explanations.

Simply because I chose not to adhere to the Christian doctrines, doesnt mean that I am totally ignorant of Theology.

I do see many who wander through the veils
of Christianity blissfully ignorant of the
history of the belief system.
And the reason this happens, is because they accept what the leaders of the Church say as pure and God Given.

Of course, this is exactly what they are supposed to do, and that aim of ignorance is perpetrated as a standard operating procedure
in Christianity.

Whoa be unto the one who calls into question the divinity of Jesus Christ.

But show me the historic evidence of this persons existance.

Jews are sentenced to Hell, because they have not accepted Jesus as the messiah, their own personal salvation.
But guess what, they are probably the only people who know the real truth and have enough guts to stand up and say it.

No, I am afraid that through experience and
education,(based on what I have learned on my own, not what the institution of Christianity wants me to know) I am getting farther away from the halls of salvation.

"If there is a God, I pray that he will protect me from his followers."

The journey is long, the way may be crooked, and the path may be perilous, be we continue on the quest for knowledge and understanding, even if it destroys our beliefs in the process. Because with the destruction of one belief, one more myth, comes the knowledge of the truth.

Do I call myself an Atheist? Do I call myself an Agnostic? No.
I consider myself a seeker.

And after half a century seeking, I have adopted as my own a saying of Buddha.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it,or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your reason and your common sense."
Wolf