Do you think that even if the person holds that position loosely? My default position would be that they were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses. However, I would readily acknowledge that I could be wrong and the true dates might be later.
I tend to think there could have also been a fair amount of oral transmission and passing of letters from church to church. It also makes sense then that the synoptic gospels borrow from each other. I haven’t seen anything that indicates that the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t the apostle Matthew’s account, for instance.
The arguments I have run up against insist that the gospels are direct 1st person accounts, and therefore the validity of the gospels can’t be questioned. It is the more extreme view that I think eats away at credibility.
You don’t pin the credibility of the Bible on the question of authorship, which is the real hanging point. Even if the gospels were 2nd or 3rd hand accounts you still think they are valid, and I would expect that is what you would convey to someone asking about the christian faith.
At least in my case, what I would expect to see from independent accounts is a bit of independence. Instead, we see a lot of borrowing and copying. As you state, these could very well be accounts passed down orally with cross-pollination between different accounts. The Gospel of John is quite different (relatively speaking), and that is the type of difference I would expect to see between independent authors.
It’s been 20+ years since my New Testament class (a one semester class at a liberal arts college), but those are the rough outlines I remember. A quick google shows that the Q source is still a popular model, but certainly not the only one.
Overall, biblical scholarship is interesting in a larger view. We often hear that Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship, and I don’t think that message is helped by an overly legalistic and granular parsing of scripture. I’m not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but I do think too much emphasis can be put on the Bible at times. It’s as if people are so focused on reading the directions for a paint-by-numbers kit that they forget to enjoy the actual act of painting.
The point is meant to be an invitation to let the a priori firewall slip for a minute, and consider the implications if it really is true that Jesus is the eternal Son of God miraculously come to earth in human flesh. We need to be willing to explore each other’s point of view.
Thanks for asking. :o)
Since I see no reason to believe that it is true, I also see no reason to waste my time contemplating the “impIications” that would arise if it was true.
So it’s more than simply a book of history, hence the level of respect for it you think is necessary, on a par with how we should treat other posters here with respect? Also, I need to lay aside my a priori assumptions about history and how the world works to make sense of it?
I think this is the crux of the problem. Can you define who the “we” here is who hold to this particular view of reality? (Can’t be christians, because they believe in the resurrection, cant be muslims because they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, can’t be Hindus because they also believe in the supernatural)…
Who exactly are this “we” and what is the view of reality they hold to?
Again, can you establish these “laws of reality” you are relying on?
This is a real dilemma.However claiming no supernatural event has ever taken place in history/can never take place in the present is not a solution. Its an assumption based on a predetermined philosophical position. Its no better than thinking something supernatural happened because it’s in line with our beliefs.
Anyone reading it. No supernatural event has ever been demonstrated. Have you ever heard of a person who can demonstrably know what will happen in the future? I account for the possibility that it is believed about Jesus in my statement.
The way things are in reality, for example, that we don’t have access to future events and have to work with facts currently in existence. Are you aware of any writers who can bend these rules?
But I’m not saying that. I am saying that the written accounts available are not sufficient (or anywhere close to it) for us to determine with accuracy that any happened.
You are correct. The solution is to take no position on whether “naturalism” is true, or whether the “supernatural” can or does exist.
We are then left with the only reasonable being option to assess claims with regard to what our observations to date demonstrate to be probable or possible.
We have never observed a resurrection. We have countless observations of people claiming things like resurrections and other miracles that are not verified or demonstrated to be untrue. There is not a single instance of a “miracle” that has been demonstrated to be true by the usual standards by which we determine things to have happened.
Probability, then, is overwhelmingly and conclusively in favour of this particular “miracle” being in the latter category.
Actually, a lot of religions have people who are believed to have predicted the future. A prophet in the OT is precisely someone who predicts the future.
I dont see how this can be a valid assumption in dating the gospels.
Everyone who reads what you write will not agree with you… In fact. most chirstians, muslims, hindus etc would disagree with your view on the “laws of reality”.
Again … Prophets… in the OT are believed to have done precisely that.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. You are assuming supernatural events like predicting the future cannot happen, interpreting books accordingly (including assuming dates of authorship) and then saying written accounts available are not sufficient to determine that supernatural stuff happened.
I dont think you can include anyone who is not a materialist in your “we”.
It seems to me a more accurate description of his position is he is not assuming that “supernatural” events have taken place, and is awaiting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that they do. He also correctly takes the position that unverifiable written accounts from long ago do not qualify as sufficient evidence.
Wouldn’t this be true for every single religion for all of human history? What are the implications if Joseph Smith really did receive those Golden Plates, and what if Jesus really did meet with people in the Americas? What if Buddha really did attain Enlightenment? What if Thor really is Odin’s son?
The key word there is “believed”. Anyone can believe anything. You could believe anything you want about the writer of Mark. If he had access to supernatural abilities in some way, he could have done anything I guess. If you’re going to go by that, you may as well just pick any date you want. Maybe I’m missing your point, if you’re making something more of a historical argument about the dating than this. I’m all ears if so.
What’s more, the author could have believed anything himself. We can probably assume he was writing about what he actually believed. That’s something, and is where the actual historical value lies, IMO.
Believed. Some people may believe it. Some people don’t. Where does that leave us? Working on a basis of demonstrable fact will get us closer to reality in all likelihood.
I’m not.
I don’t see how the available written accounts can determine that no matter how you date them. Again, I’m willing to listen to your argument in greater depth, but you may be assuming the supernatural is possible and then applying that notion in a historical process of dating. This strikes me as a bad idea historically speaking.
So far we only have your opinion.
We have several accounts all pointing to the same story.
-Mark
-Luke
-Mathew
-John
-Pauls letters
-Acts
-Peter 1 and 2
-James
-Jude
-Revelations
Are you familiar with Gary Habermas minimal facts argument?
