Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MarkB4 · 01-11-2006, 06:15 PM

Tomboymom said: Although I am no expert in biblical history or criticism, this does not seem to be the case. If there is any evidence outside the bible that the bible is true, please present it. I will be happy to learn about it.

Quote:

You have already rejected the Bible, but for the record and since you asked - Although archaeology can't prove that the Bible's accounts are true, it certainly doesn't disprove them, and recent archaeological discoveries tend to confirm the accuracy of the background details in the Bible narratives. This in turn tends to support both their historical reliability, and the claim that they are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses. (Faking an eye-witness account if you do not really know first-hand what took place is difficult - it was such evidence that changed the mind of Simon Greenleaf - The Testimony of the Four Evangelists .) You get all kinds of details wrong. Of course, some of the details do not matter, but others are important.

A number of small touches in the Gospel accounts sound like the recollections of eye-witnesses. For example, John's Gospel chapter 12 verse 3, in an account of Mary anointing Jesus's feet, says 'the whole house was filled with fragrance.'. These touches do not appear to have any theological significance - nothing is made of them. So why are they there? The simplest explanation is that the writers included them because that is how they remembered things happening. . . .

So if the New Testament documents had been made up much later (as some claim), you would expect that many of the incidental details would not be accurate, and that as knowledge of western Asia in ancient times grew, you would discover more and more discrepancies.

In fact, exactly opposite has happened. As more archaeological evidence has been discovered, the accounts in the New Testament have been confirmed again and again. This tends to show that they really are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses.

MOD NOTE: copied from here

A few examples of things that were questioned that now have hard evidence.

Quote:

1. Luke chapter 3 verse 1 dates the start of John the Baptist's ministry to the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius (that is, 29 AD), while Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod Antipas was ruler over Galilee, Philip was ruler of Iturea and Traconitis and Lysanius was ruler over Abilene.

Abilene was to the north of Galilee and Iturea, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon range of mountains, west of Damascus. For many years, the only known Lysanius was one who had been executed in 36 BC - sixty years before the date given by Luke. Skeptical scholars mocked Luke's historical inaccuracy.

But now two Greek inscriptions from Abila, northwest of Damascus, have been found, which prove there was a 'Lysanius the ruler' between the years AD 14 and 29. There is an inscription of a temple in Abila 'for the salvation of the Lords Imperial, by a freedman of Lysanius the ruler.' 'Lords Imperial' was a technical title given jointly to the emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia, widow of Augustus, so this inscription must have been made between AD 14, when Tiberius became emperor, and AD 29, when Livia died. As Jesus's ministry must have begun no later than AD 29, the archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of Luke. Once again, we see that the Bible talks accurately about real people and real places.

In AD 53 the Roman emperor Claudius gave Abilene to Herod Agrippa II. Because of this, Josephus (Antiquities 20:138) can accurately speak of 'Abila, which had been the kingdom of Lysanias'.

MOD NOTE: copied from here

2.

Quote:

The Bible records in Acts chapter 13 verses 6 to 12 how when Paul, Barnabas and John Mark visited Paphos, on Cyprus, at the start of Paul's first missionary journey, they had a dramatic encounter with the Roman governor (or proconsul) Sergius Paulus, which led to him becoming a follower of Christ.

In 1877, an inscription was found near Paphos, bearing Sergius Paulus's name and title of proconsul. Ten years later, his name was also found on a memorial stone in Rome. The stone records that in AD 47 he was appointed as one of the keepers of the banks and channel of the river Tiber. He held this office when he returned to Rome after his three years as governor of Cyprus.

Sergius Paulus's family had large land-holdings in the area of Pisidian Antioch, and this stone inscription discovered there contains his name. This inscription is now on display in the Yalvac museum, in Turkey. Acts chapter 13 verses 13-14 records how Paul and Barnabas went from Cyprus to Pisidian Antioch.
Who knows, maybe Sergius Paulus asked them to go there to speak to members of his family - and perhaps had even given them a letter of introduction.

MOD NOTE: copied from here

3.

Quote:

The book of Acts covers the beginning of the Church, from about AD 30 to AD 62. The author, Luke, describes in some detail the travels of the apostle Paul and his co-workers in present day Turkey and Greece. In describing the local officials Paul bumped up against, the author uses a range of different titles. For example, he talks about praetors in Philippi, calls Publius the first man of Malta, refers to the Asiarchs who governed Ephesus, and calls the city council of Thessalonika politarchs. (Acts chapter 17 verse 6)

In the past, scholars 'knew' that Luke was an inaccurate and unreliable historian, who did not know what he was writing about, or perhaps just could not be bothered to be consistent in his use of official titles. For example, there was absolutely no known use of the word 'politarch' anywhere in Greek literature. Luke must have got it wrong!

But recent discoveries have shown that a range of different titles were in use at the time for local government officials, and that - wherever we know what the title was - the author of Acts got it right.

For example, in 1835, a Greek inscription was discovered on an arch at Thessalonica, which contained the title 'politarch'. (The arch itself was destroyed in 1867, but the inscription is now in the British Museum.) Since then, this term has been found in a large number of other inscriptions - several of them at Thessalonika.

Luke's use of different titles in other places has also been confirmed by archaeological discoveries. And the same careful and accurate person who wrote Acts also wrote Luke's gospel. In the introduction to his Gospel, he says this:

Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught. (Gospel of Luke, chapter 1 verses 1-4)

So discoveries in archaeology have confirmed that Luke, the author of 'Acts', was a careful and accurate historian, with first-hand knowledge of his subject, who was accurate in his use of titles for government officials. This is yet more confirmation that the Bible is real history: real people, in real places.

MOD NOTE: copied from here

There are plenty more - how many would you like me to address? If you read Biblical Archeogy Review (no friend of the Bible), you will learn that the Bible has been a reliable historical document. Now you can ignore this evidence, or as Frik did, suggest that they were a bunch of bi-polar guys, but the growing evidence supports the historicity of the Biblical accounts. Jesus was described by real people and they were discribing actual events.

Yahzi · 01-11-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

Although archaeology can't prove that the Bible's accounts are true, it certainly doesn't disprove them, and recent archaeological discoveries tend to confirm the accuracy of the background details in the Bible narratives.

They found the Pillar of Hercules. Does that mean that the story of the Golden Fleece and the Argonauts is true?

TomboyMom · 01-11-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

Tomboymom said: Although I am no expert in biblical history or criticism, this does not seem to be the case. If there is any evidence outside the bible that the bible is true, please present it. I will be happy to learn about it.

Quote:

You have already rejected the Bible,

I have rejected the bible on the evidence which has been presented to me so far. However, I am an open-minded person and always open to new evidence in the search for truth. Please don't make assumptions about me, since you have never met me and have little experience of me.

Quote:

but for the record and since you asked - Although archaeology can't prove that the Bible's accounts are true, it certainly doesn't disprove them, and recent archaeological discoveries tend to confirm the accuracy of the background details in the Bible narratives.

My limited knowledge in this area, from what I have read, is that most of the major stories in the bible have not been supported by current archeological evidence. For example, I understand that contemporary archeologists do not believe that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that there was a world-wide flood, that there was a tower of Babel, that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and so forth.

Quote:

This in turn tends to support both their historical reliability, and the claim that they are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses.

I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't know about New Testament scholarship. However, my understanding is that even Christians do not claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Am I mistaken? I thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote some time after 70 A.D., and that the first account of Jesus, written by Paul, does not include any details of his life before the crucifiction. Am I mistaken?

Quote:

A number of small touches in the Gospel accounts sound like the recollections of eye-witnesses. For example, John's Gospel chapter 12 verse 3, in an account of Mary anointing Jesus's feet, says 'the whole house was filled with fragrance.'. These touches do not appear to have any theological significance - nothing is made of them. So why are they there? The simplest explanation is that the writers included them because that is how they remembered things happening.

I've encountered a number of Christians claiming that "the simplest explanation is...", but I do not see that as the simplest explanation at all! Remember, you're talking about miracles and stuff here, so that's a pretty complicated explanation. To me the simplest explanation is that the authors were not terrible fictional novelists.

Quote:

So if the New Testament documents had been made up much later (as some claim), you would expect that many of the incidental details would not be accurate, and that as knowledge of western Asia in ancient times grew, you would discover more and more discrepancies.

?Again, I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that the gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus allegedly died, by people who never saw him. Am I mistaken?

Everything after that in your post is completely outside my knowledge and expertise. However, the people in B C & H know this stuff in and out. May I suggest that a moderator may want to split this all off to there, so we can all learn more about it? I would really like to know about and understand these controversies.

I will say, Mark, that I am not inclined to take your word for it, however. I would need you to cite independent sources. That's because of what I do know, or at least thought I knew, your statements have so far not been accurate. If I am wrong, please someone correct me.

I do notice that you seem to equate "The Bible" with "The New Testament." Why is that? Do you believe, for example, that there was a worldwide flood for 40 days, Noah put 2 (or 7?) of each animal on a boat, etc?

MarkB4 · 01-12-2006, 12:11 AM

Tomboymom - you said in my response to saying you have already rejected the Bible: I have rejected the bible on the evidence which has been presented to me so far. However, I am an open-minded person and always open to new evidence in the search for truth. Please don't make assumptions about me, since you have never met me and have little experience of me.

I was addressing this to your question specifically and then addressed what I have been hearing in these threads generally - I keep hearing that some evidences don't count. You are right that I should not have made that general assumption while addressing this to you.

The you said: For example, I understand that contemporary archeologists do not believe that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that there was a world-wide flood, that there was a tower of Babel, that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and so forth.

What evidence do they base it on? The most recent things that I have read regarding Jericho is that its fall does have evidence (see below). There is controversy in that, which is also explained below. Much of what I have seen that rejects the Old Testament stories does so on the basis of a lack of belief in miracles, not compelling evidence. One of the reasons I want to look at "near" evidence first (more recent accounts as in the Gospels) is that they claim miracles as well and we have already found large amounts of historical and archeological validation of the accounts.

You said: I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't know about New Testament scholarship. However, my understanding is that even Christians do not claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Am I mistaken? I thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote some time after 70 A.D., and that the first account of Jesus, written by Paul, does not include any details of his life before the crucifiction. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken and I don't know where you are getting this other than this was the thought from a period of Higher Criticism in the 1800s through the early last century. It can be traced further back to French sholar Jean Astruc's work (mid-18th cent.) on the sources of the Pentateuch. It was continued by German scholars such as Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918). Not only did these scholars dispute one another's findings, they were bitterly attacked by others. Higher criticism has been increasingly abandoned for other methodologies, such as narrative criticism and canonical criticism, and the term itself has largely fallen into disuse - it is simply not current scholarship (The Jesus Seminar uses some of this same outdated material and makes its rewrite from the perspective of debunking miracles - it is their presumption, not their conclusion). The "Bible is fiction" stuff which suggests historical unreliability is based on old data. Christans believe that the authorship of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, John) and an account that included interviews with eyewitnesses (Luke). The date of these is from from about 55 AD to prior to 70 AD. Note that none of the Gospel accounts speak if Titus' taking of Jerusalem (Jesus warned of it, so sceptics have said it must have ocurred afterwards - but none of the accounts end with any indication that the writers were aware of a fallen Jerusalem - and that includes Acts).

You wrote: I've encountered a number of Christians claiming that "the simplest explanation is...", but I do not see that as the simplest explanation at all! Remember, you're talking about miracles and stuff here, so that's a pretty complicated explanation. To me the simplest explanation is that the authors were not terrible fictional novelists.

I went through the same questions with respect to miracles. I am not making the case for that here (though I believe in them now) - I am simply saying that those who say the gospel accounts are to be discounted on a historical basis are not current in their scholarship or are not honest.

You wrote: Again, I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that the gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus allegedly died, by people who never saw him. Am I mistaken?

I have heard the arguments for and against the early Gospels. You may want to explore both. The late date has not been as convincing as the early date to me. Keep in mind, these were referenced by early church leaders (there were writings by them as well - Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus).

You wrote: I will say, Mark, that I am not inclined to take your word for it, however. I would need you to cite independent sources. That's because of what I do know, or at least thought I knew, your statements have so far not been accurate. If I am wrong, please someone correct me.

I understand and I am not offended. This stuff needs to be checked out. I don't beleive that I have made any inaccurate statements, so I am not sure what you are referring to, but I agree that you should look to independent sources. Biblical Archeology Review is the one I generally use - it is scholarly and non-Christian (yes, I like that kind of source - it is universally accepted as scholarly).

Check out the notes on Jericho (below).

Mark

Jericho
While excavating in and around Jericho between 1930 and 1936, Prof. John Garstang wrote, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls of the city fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city." In addition to writing this independent description of this one particular find, he also signed it and had two of his co-workers witness and sign it themselves.

Evidence from every other archeological site around the ancient cities of the Middle East had previously shown the walls of cities falling inward. The reason that they fell inward rather than out is simple: when attackers besiege a city they are trying to get in, not out. Yet Jericho's walls fell outward.

In the spring of 1997, two Italian archaeologists conducted a limited excavation on the ancient tell of Jericho. Lorenzo Nigro and Nicolo Marchetti, working under the auspices of the new Palestinian Department of Archaeology, excavated for one month on the fringes of Kathleen Kenyon’s west and south trenches. Their dig was the first foreign expedition in the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank since self-rule began in 1994.

After their excavation, Nigro and Marchetti announced they found no evidence for a destruction from the time of Joshua. While it is too soon for the academic community to see details of their discoveries, their announcement suggests their excavation was conducted to disprove the Biblical account of Joshua’s capture of the city. Is it further possible that the Palestinian Authority supported this dig for the express purpose of denouncing any Jewish connection to the site?

As to their evidence, Dr. Bryant Wood, Director of the Associates for Biblical Research and one of the leading experts on the archaeology of Jericho, recently responded. "It matters little what the Italian archaeologists did not find in their month-long dig. The evidence is already in. Three major expeditions to the site over the past 90 years uncovered abundant evidence to support the Biblical account," he said. As Wood went on to point out, John Garstang (l 930-1936) and Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) both dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city’s destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC.

Aradia · 01-12-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

The you said: For example, I understand that contemporary archeologists do not believe that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that there was a world-wide flood, that there was a tower of Babel, that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and so forth.

What evidence do they base it on? The most recent things that I have read regarding Jericho is that its fall does have evidence (see below). There is controversy in that, which is also explained below. Much of what I have seen that rejects the Old Testament stories does so on the basis of a lack of belief in miracles, not compelling evidence. One of the reasons I want to look at "near" evidence first (more recent accounts as in the Gospels) is that they claim miracles as well and we have already found large amounts of historical and archeological validation of the accounts.

Just thought I'd interject a few tidbits for the two of you to play with. There are jewish scholars who believe that there was no exile, and that there was no historical Moses figure. As far as the flood, "the world" was a much smaller place 2000 years ago. People didn't get around much. Although I'm not completely convinced, some folks do believe that a large area was flooded, and this is what became the "world-wide flood".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

You said: I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't know about New Testament scholarship. However, my understanding is that even Christians do not claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Am I mistaken? I thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote some time after 70 A.D., and that the first account of Jesus, written by Paul, does not include any details of his life before the crucifiction. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken (snip)

Christans believe that the authorship of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, John) and an account that included interviews with eyewitnesses (Luke). The date of these is from from about 55 AD to prior to 70 AD. Note that none of the Gospel accounts speak if Titus' taking of Jerusalem (Jesus warned of it, so sceptics have said it must have ocurred afterwards - but none of the accounts end with any indication that the writers were aware of a fallen Jerusalem - and that includes Acts).

Umm, no. It's generally agreed upon by most scholars, including christian scholars who make this sort of thing their life's work, that the synoptic gospels were not eyewitness accounts. The single earliest evidence of any gospel dates to, if I remember correctly, around AD 60. That's just one of the gospels. Some folks believe that one of the dead sea scroll fragments could be a piece of a gospel from before AD 60, but it seems unlikely, and the evidence is lacking at best. And Paul, of course, never met Jesus, and didn't convert until after the crucifiction, so it seems reasonable that none of his works go further back than that.

It only tends to be non-scholars (christian or otherwise) who believe that the synoptic gospels were eyewitness accounts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

You wrote: Again, I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that the gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus allegedly died, by people who never saw him. Am I mistaken?

I have heard the arguments for and against the early Gospels. You may want to explore both. The late date has not been as convincing as the early date to me. Keep in mind, these were referenced by early church leaders (there were writings by them as well - Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus).

I've done a fair amount of research into the current scholarly assessment of the gospels, and the early date doesn't seem to have much evidence to support its validity. Modern analysis has come a long way since the early church leaders.

In general, I really like being on "your side" of the debate, Mark, but I do have to point out factual errors when I see them.

Pendaric · 01-12-2006, 07:30 AM

Split from here

MarkB4 · 01-12-2006, 07:56 AM

Aradia - these are serious issues and when I say that I believe in miracles I don't expect you or anyone else to respond without an uncritical eye. The thing I keep hearing is an appeal to "most scholars" (you are not the only one who has done this) say so and then I hear that "non-scholars" are the ones who say they were not. This appeal to scholars is interesting, but they are so far unnamed. I did include a reference that is scholarly - The Biblical Archeology Review. Are you aware that there are scholars who, like the ones you named above, make this sort of thing their life's work, who have made a compelling case?

By the way, the mention I made of the early church fathers was not based on scholarship but on witness. In their letters they mentioned some of these things validating scriptural and personal accounts. Think of it this way. If someone brought up to me in 2006 some event from 1978 that I was aware of at the time, I can recall enough to validate a few things about the event. If furthermore, I knew the people involved in the event with some familiarity, my witness extends to acknowledgement of their credibility or lack thereof. The interesting thing about these early church fathers, is that in their writings they make reference to things that validate the time and authorship. I assume you have read the gospels - perhaps you might want to read some of these as well - they are available with a quick google search.

Have you read Thieleke, Erickson, Walvoord and Zuck, Meier? I believe you would be impressed with their scholarship, and they look at all the data critically and explain their conclusions. I blieve that the most compelling case that is made concerns the lack of mention of the Fall of Jerusalem. Why would this have been left out? A fictional writer could have made a lot of hay with that. It could have been used to justify, explain and support the case for Christ, but they did not - they could not - it hadn't happened yet. Please expand your consumption of scholarship. Before I learned to drive turnip trucks I spent a few years in seminary looking into that very scholarship.

Quote:

Consider this fall of Jerusalem issue... If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts. This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59. It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

Irenaeus continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul. This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Papias claimed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter. Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64. Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt.

MOD NOTE - copied from here

A few things to chew on.
Mark

pharoah · 01-12-2006, 08:05 AM

No one doubts that the Biblical authors didn't have some awareness of the people and places around them, or that the Bible contains some historical facts. So these archeological arguments are usually a giant straw man. Morever, those making them suffer from confirmation bias. They process all favorable evidence and ignore, malign or forget all contrary evidence.

Julian · 01-12-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

The you said: For example, I understand that contemporary archeologists do not believe that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that there was a world-wide flood, that there was a tower of Babel, that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and so forth.

What evidence do they base it on? The most recent things that I have read regarding Jericho is that its fall does have evidence (see below). There is controversy in that, which is also explained below. Much of what I have seen that rejects the Old Testament stories does so on the basis of a lack of belief in miracles, not compelling evidence. One of the reasons I want to look at "near" evidence first (more recent accounts as in the Gospels) is that they claim miracles as well and we have already found large amounts of historical and archeological validation of the accounts.

Any evidence for the walls of Jericho story is rather old. Finkelstein et al. have shown that the walls of Jericho story doesn’t work with the OT. See below.

Quote:

You said: I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't know about New Testament scholarship. However, my understanding is that even Christians do not claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Am I mistaken? I thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote some time after 70 A.D., and that the first account of Jesus, written by Paul, does not include any details of his life before the crucifiction. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken and I don't know where you are getting this other than this was the thought from a period of Higher Criticism in the 1800s through the early last century. It can be traced further back to French sholar Jean Astruc's work (mid-18th cent.) on the sources of the Pentateuch. It was continued by German scholars such as Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918). Not only did these scholars dispute one another's findings, they were bitterly attacked by others. Higher criticism has been increasingly abandoned for other methodologies, such as narrative criticism and canonical criticism, and the term itself has largely fallen into disuse - it is simply not current scholarship (The Jesus Seminar uses some of this same outdated material and makes its rewrite from the perspective of debunking miracles - it is their presumption, not their conclusion). The "Bible is fiction" stuff which suggests historical unreliability is based on old data. Christans believe that the authorship of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, John) and an account that included interviews with eyewitnesses (Luke). The date of these is from from about 55 AD to prior to 70 AD. Note that none of the Gospel accounts speak if Titus' taking of Jerusalem (Jesus warned of it, so sceptics have said it must have ocurred afterwards - but none of the accounts end with any indication that the writers were aware of a fallen Jerusalem - and that includes Acts).

I am not directly familiar with Semler or Eichhorn but I do know Baur and Wellhausen. Both are extremely reputable scholars, however, what you fail to realize is that their work is old. Much has been done since those days. Try some modern scholars like Ehrman, Koester, Pagels, Metzger and many others.

Of course they disputed each other’s findings in many cases. That’s what scientists do. Good ones, at least. This is in stark contrast to the apologists, inerrantists and their ilk who broadly agree on everything. Which approach seems more scientific to you?

You say that Christians agree that the gospels are eyewitness accounts (or rely upon them). That is a gross misrepresentation, of course, as only fundamentalists say any such thing. We actually have a number of believing Christians here on this board who would strongly disagree with that statement. You would call them liberal scholars, I call them intelligent and scientific. Most biblical scholars are Christians and most accept that the gospels were anonymous. Why? Because they were. The names were attached at a much later date, i.e. anonymous.

There are many types of criticisms and all are used although they do not all yield an equal crop. We have form criticism, redactional criticism, textual criticism and many others. Some are limited but I have never heard that any have been abandoned.

The Jesus Seminar uses any number of methodologies. And, yes, they do assume that miracles aren’t historical facts. Why? Because we have no evidence that they ever happen. You are saying that we should simply a priori accept something that we know to be impossible. Not a very scientific opinion. You can, of course, claim that it was possible for god but now you are into special pleading, a logical fallacy.

TomboyMom is almost entirely correct in her knowledge with the exception that Paul may have spoken of the last supper although I find that quote highly spurious.

Quote:

You wrote: I've encountered a number of Christians claiming that "the simplest explanation is...", but I do not see that as the simplest explanation at all! Remember, you're talking about miracles and stuff here, so that's a pretty complicated explanation. To me the simplest explanation is that the authors were not terrible fictional novelists.

I went through the same questions with respect to miracles. I am not making the case for that here (though I believe in them now) - I am simply saying that those who say the gospel accounts are to be discounted on a historical basis are not current in their scholarship or are not honest.

TomboyMom once again displays good sense and knowledge. MarkB4 is again misrepresenting the facts. It is exactly current scholarship and as honest as one can be. To be humble before the facts. The most important fact being that miracles do not happen. Until evidence show that they do, rational people must take a rational stance and not fall victim to special pleading in favor of superstition.

Quote:

You wrote: Again, I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that the gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus allegedly died, by people who never saw him. Am I mistaken?

I have heard the arguments for and against the early Gospels. You may want to explore both. The late date has not been as convincing as the early date to me. Keep in mind, these were referenced by early church leaders (there were writings by them as well - Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus).

Wow, big misrepresentation here. MarkB4 is here mentioning 2nd century writers with the exception of Clement who did not reference our gospels, IIRC. The gospels are generally dated to the end of the 1st, beginning of the 2nd century. That is the current scholarly consensus among scholars.

Quote:

You wrote: I will say, Mark, that I am not inclined to take your word for it, however. I would need you to cite independent sources. That's because of what I do know, or at least thought I knew, your statements have so far not been accurate. If I am wrong, please someone correct me.

I understand and I am not offended. This stuff needs to be checked out. I don't beleive that I have made any inaccurate statements, so I am not sure what you are referring to, but I agree that you should look to independent sources. Biblical Archeology Review is the one I generally use - it is scholarly and non-Christian (yes, I like that kind of source - it is universally accepted as scholarly).

TomboyMom, for OT archeology there is no better book than The Bible Unearthed. For NT overviews I suggest that you utilize a good, modern introduction, preferably one by either Ehrman, Koester or Brown. Brown is quite Christian but an excellent scholar. Ehrman is a personal favorite of mine.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, Finkelstein’s book I referenced above (The Bible Unearthed) is a much newer than most of the above. It is much like the exodus which never happened. Mostly because both Sinai and Canaan were both controlled by the Egyptians at the time. So the Jews fled from Egypt, through Egypt into Egypt. Egypt held all of Canaan with only 100 soldiers. Who were the Jews fighting exactly? Why do we not have any records? Why are there anachronisms? Etc, etc, etc…

MarkB4 is articulate, well-read and knowledgeable but his sources have been mostly biased Christian literature, it would seem. Check out the BC&H reading list for some good suggestions.

MarkB4, if you wish to discuss some of these issues, please post one issue per new thread and I am sure that you will get many erudite answers from believers and non-religious people, both.

Julian

Biff the unclean · 01-12-2006, 11:02 AM

Mark, If Luke was interested in facts why did he borrow so heavily from fiction? Why not just tell the story of Paul’s nervous break down…I mean conversion…instead of lifting it from Euripides’ Bacchae?
We can date the gospels that come with dates in them only to 325CE. (The same date as the oldest church that’s been found, and the oldest Christian themed art) The fragments are dated by comparing the handwriting with pieces of known date…written by other people. You can take their ascribed dates for what they are worth.
As for them being written by Apostles, there is only one that makes such a claim (and is even written in the first person) and that’s the Gospel of John. It is Gnostic and so was banned by the church. Which puts the ole kibosh on your claim that early date= accurate rendition. The Gnostic are as old, some are claimed to predate, as your version of the Gospels and their Jesus is nothing like yours.
Another problem is that there were no historic Apostles, just as there was no historic Jesus. They are all characters in the same fictional story.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2006, 12:11 AM	#4
MarkB4 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 211	Tomboymom - you said in my response to saying you have already rejected the Bible: I have rejected the bible on the evidence which has been presented to me so far. However, I am an open-minded person and always open to new evidence in the search for truth. Please don't make assumptions about me, since you have never met me and have little experience of me. I was addressing this to your question specifically and then addressed what I have been hearing in these threads generally - I keep hearing that some evidences don't count. You are right that I should not have made that general assumption while addressing this to you. The you said: For example, I understand that contemporary archeologists do not believe that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that there was a world-wide flood, that there was a tower of Babel, that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and so forth. What evidence do they base it on? The most recent things that I have read regarding Jericho is that its fall does have evidence (see below). There is controversy in that, which is also explained below. Much of what I have seen that rejects the Old Testament stories does so on the basis of a lack of belief in miracles, not compelling evidence. One of the reasons I want to look at "near" evidence first (more recent accounts as in the Gospels) is that they claim miracles as well and we have already found large amounts of historical and archeological validation of the accounts. You said: I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't know about New Testament scholarship. However, my understanding is that even Christians do not claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Am I mistaken? I thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote some time after 70 A.D., and that the first account of Jesus, written by Paul, does not include any details of his life before the crucifiction. Am I mistaken? Yes, you are mistaken and I don't know where you are getting this other than this was the thought from a period of Higher Criticism in the 1800s through the early last century. It can be traced further back to French sholar Jean Astruc's work (mid-18th cent.) on the sources of the Pentateuch. It was continued by German scholars such as Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918). Not only did these scholars dispute one another's findings, they were bitterly attacked by others. Higher criticism has been increasingly abandoned for other methodologies, such as narrative criticism and canonical criticism, and the term itself has largely fallen into disuse - it is simply not current scholarship (The Jesus Seminar uses some of this same outdated material and makes its rewrite from the perspective of debunking miracles - it is their presumption, not their conclusion). The "Bible is fiction" stuff which suggests historical unreliability is based on old data. Christans believe that the authorship of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, John) and an account that included interviews with eyewitnesses (Luke). The date of these is from from about 55 AD to prior to 70 AD. Note that none of the Gospel accounts speak if Titus' taking of Jerusalem (Jesus warned of it, so sceptics have said it must have ocurred afterwards - but none of the accounts end with any indication that the writers were aware of a fallen Jerusalem - and that includes Acts). You wrote: I've encountered a number of Christians claiming that "the simplest explanation is...", but I do not see that as the simplest explanation at all! Remember, you're talking about miracles and stuff here, so that's a pretty complicated explanation. To me the simplest explanation is that the authors were not terrible fictional novelists. I went through the same questions with respect to miracles. I am not making the case for that here (though I believe in them now) - I am simply saying that those who say the gospel accounts are to be discounted on a historical basis are not current in their scholarship or are not honest. You wrote: Again, I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that the gospels were written more than 40 years after Jesus allegedly died, by people who never saw him. Am I mistaken? I have heard the arguments for and against the early Gospels. You may want to explore both. The late date has not been as convincing as the early date to me. Keep in mind, these were referenced by early church leaders (there were writings by them as well - Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus). You wrote: I will say, Mark, that I am not inclined to take your word for it, however. I would need you to cite independent sources. That's because of what I do know, or at least thought I knew, your statements have so far not been accurate. If I am wrong, please someone correct me. I understand and I am not offended. This stuff needs to be checked out. I don't beleive that I have made any inaccurate statements, so I am not sure what you are referring to, but I agree that you should look to independent sources. Biblical Archeology Review is the one I generally use - it is scholarly and non-Christian (yes, I like that kind of source - it is universally accepted as scholarly). Check out the notes on Jericho (below). Mark Jericho While excavating in and around Jericho between 1930 and 1936, Prof. John Garstang wrote, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls of the city fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city." In addition to writing this independent description of this one particular find, he also signed it and had two of his co-workers witness and sign it themselves. Evidence from every other archeological site around the ancient cities of the Middle East had previously shown the walls of cities falling inward. The reason that they fell inward rather than out is simple: when attackers besiege a city they are trying to get in, not out. Yet Jericho's walls fell outward. In the spring of 1997, two Italian archaeologists conducted a limited excavation on the ancient tell of Jericho. Lorenzo Nigro and Nicolo Marchetti, working under the auspices of the new Palestinian Department of Archaeology, excavated for one month on the fringes of Kathleen Kenyon’s west and south trenches. Their dig was the first foreign expedition in the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank since self-rule began in 1994. After their excavation, Nigro and Marchetti announced they found no evidence for a destruction from the time of Joshua. While it is too soon for the academic community to see details of their discoveries, their announcement suggests their excavation was conducted to disprove the Biblical account of Joshua’s capture of the city. Is it further possible that the Palestinian Authority supported this dig for the express purpose of denouncing any Jewish connection to the site? As to their evidence, Dr. Bryant Wood, Director of the Associates for Biblical Research and one of the leading experts on the archaeology of Jericho, recently responded. "It matters little what the Italian archaeologists did not find in their month-long dig. The evidence is already in. Three major expeditions to the site over the past 90 years uncovered abundant evidence to support the Biblical account," he said. As Wood went on to point out, John Garstang (l 930-1936) and Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) both dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city’s destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC.

01-12-2006, 07:30 AM	#6
Pendaric Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle. Posts: 3,715	Split from here

01-12-2006, 08:05 AM	#8
pharoah Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,729	No one doubts that the Biblical authors didn't have some awareness of the people and places around them, or that the Bible contains some historical facts. So these archeological arguments are usually a giant straw man. Morever, those making them suffer from confirmation bias. They process all favorable evidence and ignore, malign or forget all contrary evidence.

01-12-2006, 11:02 AM	#10
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Mark, If Luke was interested in facts why did he borrow so heavily from fiction? Why not just tell the story of Paul’s nervous break down…I mean conversion…instead of lifting it from Euripides’ Bacchae? We can date the gospels that come with dates in them only to 325CE. (The same date as the oldest church that’s been found, and the oldest Christian themed art) The fragments are dated by comparing the handwriting with pieces of known date…written by other people. You can take their ascribed dates for what they are worth. As for them being written by Apostles, there is only one that makes such a claim (and is even written in the first person) and that’s the Gospel of John. It is Gnostic and so was banned by the church. Which puts the ole kibosh on your claim that early date= accurate rendition. The Gnostic are as old, some are claimed to predate, as your version of the Gospels and their Jesus is nothing like yours. Another problem is that there were no historic Apostles, just as there was no historic Jesus. They are all characters in the same fictional story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.