Jack the Bodiless

reniaa: Nope, this is pretty much universally accepted even by Christian scholars nowadays.

It isn't just based on what the various authors were writing about: it's based on the actual words and phrases that they used. They copied verbatim. Nowadays we'd call it "plagiarism".
No, it's quite clear. There is no "problem" for us here. Rather, anti-anti-theist has the problem: because the contradictions exist. This means that the gospels do not form an accurate account: somebody goofed.

Timetospend

It is interesting reading the responses from critics below...some with rather unkind wording.

While I would agree that you have not proved your thesis, there is some value in it.

If the gospels are both fictitious and contradictory, there must be something that allows this to happen. Critics create Q and other such unprovable mechanisms to explain how both points can be true. By providing a common source, then the gospels can have contradictions because they report differently the common fictitious source...or perhaps they add wrongly to a source that originally was non-fictitious. There are lots of ways in which this type of argument manifests since there is no way to verify any of them are correct.

I must admit that I do not find either contradictions or fiction in the gospels and do not have a need for imaginary Q.

Thanks,

-Jay-

Shirley Knott has already pointed out the absurd nature of your argument.

You're suggesting that all fictitious accounts of an event must be written together.

The following are all fictionalized accounts of the Whitechapel killings that took place in London in 1888 (I'm working with film here, but I could just as easily cite books):

Kolchak: The Night Stalker, episode 1.1, The Ripper, a 1974 TV show.

The Ripper, an 1985 direct to video film.

Jack The Ripper, a 1976 German theatrical film.

From Hell, a 2001 American theatrical film.

Same source material. Wildly different interpretations. 27 years apart.
The rest of your post, to use your own words, is

regards,

NinJay

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, we don't even have to be aware of the Synoptic problem to refute AAT's argument:
...Except that it doesn't.

The gospels were written decades after the events they describe, presumably compiled from oral traditions. Given this scenario, it doesn't matter who copied from whom. Various not-entirely-consistent versions would be floating about, regardless of whether there was any substance to the original story. A set of real events, or a single original fiction that got distorted and/or embellished over time, would produce the same result.

...But, actually, Anti-anti-theist's argument has torpedoed itself.

It is certainly true that there are numerous apparent contradictions in the gospels: AAT has admitted this (his argument requires them).

But are they actual contradictions, or can they be resolved?

If they CANNOT be resolved, the atheists WIN this argument.

If they CAN be resolved: then the accounts are harmonious, therefore they could have been a fictional account invented by one person (or a committe working together). The atheists would be wrong about the contradictions being genuine: but they would be RIGHT in claiming that the gospels could be fictional.

So: are the atheists right about the contradictions, or are they right about the gospels being consistent with a single fictional account?

Do we win, or do we win?

It's a classic win-win scenario!

Solitary Man

Ah, but NinJay, the events described in those films were based on a true story...

Sven

You loved it? *sigh*

As I read it, I just thought "brain-dead", "strawman", "ignorant", etc.

IOW: I've seldom read an "argument" which was worse.

Dogfish

Another example of choosing the emotial response over rational thought. "It didn't make any sense, but oooooh it made me feel good!":Cheeky:

-Jay-

No, reniaa. Pretty much any scholarly discussion of the Gospels will address (and support) this viewpoint, even those by Christian authors. (The exception is Fundamentalist Christian publishers don't touch this, except to offer apologetics.) Read Raymond Brown, Helmut Koester, or Bart Ehrman. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) covers the basics of textual criticism pretty well, and is quite readable.

The evidence comes from the texts themselves: the characteristics of their use of language, their grammatical structure and the similarities and discrepancies between accounts.

The evidence comes from history: There are indications within each Gospel of the conditions under which they were written. These conditions give each Gospel a unique character.

Just for giggles: Luke 22:39-46 has Jesus going off by himself on the Mount of Olives to pray.

The corresponding passages in Mark are Mark 14:32-41.

They don' t match, mainly in the dialog that the authors give to Jesus, and in Jesus' demeanor. In Luke, Jesus is scared, he's in anguish. Mark portrays him as much more stoic and in control. Why the difference? In both cases, who was around to record his dialog and frame of mind? (Remember, he was by himself...)

How is your position, that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts or records of eyewitness accounts a more reasonable explanation for details like this than the explanation that the two accounts are different, but related, literary creations?

regards,

NinJay

reniaa

My position is they are inspired(which allows for the authors to have some knowledge of jesus without being there) accounts from eyewitness sources which also obviously includes individual perspective from the writers viewpoint.

there's nothing wrong with apologetics you use it as a bad word but all it means is to defend the christian word.

I have a real problem with the veracity on the gospels judged on language and use of texts as the written word was completely different 2000 years, firstly while writing is widespread now, then it was confined to a much smaller part of the population, scholars and scribes who were taught to abide very strictly by form and format in a way we just are not now. I just can't see how a modern scholar can safely say he can be a perfect judge of language form and format 2000 years after the fact.

Roger Pearse

This appears to be an appeal to authority rather than evidence or reason, and I'm not altogether confident that you know this for a fact, rather than merely supposing it after reading Ehrman? Anyway, on matters of political or religious controversy, do we not find that the opinion of 'scholars' merely reflects those who control appointments? I'm not certain that many posters in this forum would be happy with the consensus views of scholars on various subjects anyway.

The authorship of the four gospels is given to us by the historical record. Are these 'independent accounts'? What does a 'dependent account' look like? Presumably the latter is one that is entirely dependent on another. None of the four qualify as dependent on this score. Or is it that the *core material* has no independent access to the data? -- the accounts of witnesses, etc? Again, all four seem to have this.

Let's not get stuck on a word, for fear of rhetoric. Let's rather say what we mean in some other word. If all we mean by 'not independent' is "we support the idea that Luke and Matthew relate some material from Mark, word for word" then probably 'not independent' is a bad phrase to use.

This is very vague, for so positive a statement. I cannot resolve this down to some solid proposition, I'm afraid.

Here we are into standard 'bible difficulties' terrain, and atheists have compiled huge numbers of 'problems' for others to solve. Unfortunately the majority of these appear to be the sort of thing that anyone could hoke up between any four accounts of a car crash. The insinuation that Christianity cannot be true unless any Christian can give an explanation for all of these needs no discussion.

I was unclear which portion of your 'details' supported your position, tho? On the face of it the disagreement that you offer controverts it, surely?

But before all this turns into strawman positions, shouldn't we clearly define what is data and what is inference on this topic? How about this:

1. There are four gospels transmitted to us, which the ancient authors ascribe to the apostles or their associates (Irenaeus, Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 4, etc). Three of these have passages which are verbally identical. All this is fact.

2. It is inferred from this that there must be some connection between these texts, therefore. This is theory, but fairly irresistable.

3. The nature of the connection is unknown. Nothing in the historical record explains this. The ancients also allude to 'bible difficulties' which they address in works such as the Quaestiones of Eusebius for Stephanus and Marinus. This also is fact.

4. There are a substantial number of theories as to how the connections come about. These are *theories*, and some of them possible but unevidenced in my opinion. As has been remarked before in this forum, there is actually nothing whatever that says that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not have breakfast together every morning in Rome in 61 AD (I do not assert that they did!). Nor that Mark's notes of Peter's sermons were not available to Luke at that time (both were in Rome then).

All the best,

Roger Pearse