Originally Posted by hallq

If you want modern scholarship on the authorship of the Gospels, I suggest Raymond Brown's introduction. He lashes out at those who are highly skeptical of their miracle claims, but the most charitable assessment he can give of the traditional authorship claims is that it is "not impossible" that the book of Luke was written by a minor companion of Paul. "Not impossible."

Originally Posted by Richbee

Luke’s credibility as an historian has been defended by Sir William Ramsay, who began his academic career as a skeptic, but was turned around by the hard facts of evidence.

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Simon Greenleaf. I. don't. believe. it. A 19th century lawyer, writing prior to the development of modern critical ideas, spouting nonsense.

Except for a tiny band of religious conservatives who decide what the text means prior to their entry into it, all modern scholarship supports the assertions that the writers of the Gospels never knew Jesus. See any of the major introductory texts, such as Ehrman's Intro, Koester's History and Literature, Brown's Intro, Schnelle's History and Theology, Sanders' Historical Figure of Jesus.

Essentially, nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, and the evidence indicates, as Sanders avers, that they received their names after 150 (see Chapter Six in The Historical Figure of Jesus). That is what scholars have concluded. Lawyers writing 150 years ago, prior to the beginnings of modern critical scholarship on the Gospels, aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Vorkosigan

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I haven't disputed the accuracy of John. Yet. Nothing you've posted goes to the case that the authors of the gospels were not followers of Jesus. That is well established in modern critical scholarship.

Vorkosigan

Originally Posted by Richbee

More rubbish!

You have only the testimony of "skeptics".

LOL!

Originally Posted by foolish faith

“We skeptics have definitely not been keeping up our end of the debate in the philosophy of religion. Theistic philosophers have recently written a great deal about the historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. These arguments are backed by an impressive degree of historical and biblical scholarship and cannot be lightly dismissed.”

Originally Posted by Philo

{Philosophy of religion, like any area of philosophy, thrives on debate. One aim of Philo is to redress an imbalance in recent discussions. I recently received a copy of Charles Taliafero's masterful survey Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). The very extensive bibliography lists many recent works by theists and only a few by atheists or agnostics.} We skeptics have definitely not been keeping up our end of the debate in the philosophy of religion. This is too bad since, as I argued in an earlier editorial, the result has been that various sophisticated apologetic enterprises have flourished without the rigorous critical scrutiny they deserve.

Perhaps things are now changing. Theistic philosophers have recently written a great deal about the historical arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus. These arguments are backed by an impressive degree of historical and biblical scholarship and cannot be lightly dismissed. Michael Martin is one of the few nontheist philosophers to address these arguments. His article "Why the Resurrection Is Initially Improbable" in the inaugural issue of Philo argued that the resurrection of Jesus must be regarded as initially improbable even by theists. He contended that the evidence for the Resurrection is insufficient to overcome that initial implausibility.

{In the present issue Stephen T. Davis responds to Martin's earlier article in his essay "Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?" Martin's reply to Davis is also included in this issue. Their debate is lively, and I hope it signals the beginning of a deeper dialogue between Christian and nontheist philosophers on these topics. ...}