Typing out a list of scholars who agree with you does not change the fact that the majority consensus of scholars agree with me.
No, he isn’t.
1 Like
What is your proof of that claim?
Based on the questions you’ve been asking in this thread: that NT Wright video could be of interest to you
They were not biased against faith or the possibility that God exists, or eventually decided not to be. You are demanding evidence beyond any doubt, rather than reasonable doubt. You are demanding God make Himself known to you so that you have no choice but to believe. That’s not how He wants to work. He is glorified by faith. He wants followers who want to be in a relationship with Him. Not because they’re forced to. Lol, I’m a Calvinist and still can say that. He may work miraculously on your heart, but in your mind you will still be choosing him.
Again those are the followers of the cult. Not the leaders. The leaders gain power by establishing the cult. The apostles did not have power/control over groups like we see with cults - they did not stay in one place to keep that control. That’s obvious from their own stories. You still haven’t described their motivation if you believe all of the stories are fake.
Also if they are fake then why are the details of the stories a little different? Why not have one story so it’s more believable?
This is a distinction without a difference. If you come up with a fake story this is a very bad way to spread a story you want others to believe in 1st century Palestine.
Wrong. I am asking for the same degree of evidence that is used to determine anything else exists, or has happened. Religious apologists are so used to engaging in special pleading the don’t even realize when they are doing it anymore.
If you’d watched the video, you’d know that is false. The leaders committed suicide, too.
I don’t why you are still asking me this when I have already explained I do not think the story is fake. It’s just not true. Just like the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult did not make up a story of the spaceship they thought would take their souls to another world. They really believed it existed, as shown by their mass suicide.
They were wrong. There was no space ship.
If you insist no one would ever die for something unless they correctly knew it to be true, then the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide would not have occurred. It did occur. So your argument is false.
1 Like
Any standard textbook on the subject.
Also, you and @thoughtful might find these writings from that well-known militantly atheist organization, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, interesting (my emphasis):
The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of (The Gospel According to Matthew) have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.
In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66–70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Although (Mark) is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36–39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) and with Peter (1 Pt 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources—miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion—so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.
Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mk 13:9–13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mk 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.
Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of (Luke) and of the > Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Phlm 24 and 2 Tm 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Lk 1:2). His two-volume work marks him as someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.
Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Lk 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition.
Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Lk 23:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 18:41; Mk 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mk 7:1–23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Lk 2:30–32; 3:6, 38; 4:16–30; 13:28–30; 14:15–24; 17:11–19; 24:47–48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.
(The Gospel According to John) contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (Jn 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus’ public ministry lasted for several years (see note on Jn 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (Jn 2:14–25; 5; 7–8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (Jn 18:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.
The fourth gospel is not simply history; the narrative has been organized and adapted to serve the evangelist’s theological purposes as well. Among them are the opposition to the synagogue of the day and to John the Baptist’s followers, who tried to exalt their master at Jesus’ expense, the desire to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and the desire to convince Christians that their religious belief and practice must be rooted in Jesus. Such theological purposes have impelled the evangelist to emphasize motifs that were not so clear in the synoptic account of Jesus’ ministry, e.g., the explicit emphasis on his divinity.
The polemic between synagogue and church produced bitter and harsh invective, especially regarding the hostility toward Jesus of the authorities—Pharisees and Sadducees—who are combined and referred to frequently as “the Jews” (see note on Jn 1:19). These opponents are even described in Jn 8:44 as springing from their father the devil, whose conduct they imitate in opposing God by rejecting Jesus, whom God has sent. On the other hand, the author of this gospel seems to take pains to show that women are not inferior to men in the Christian community: the woman at the well in Samaria (Jn 4) is presented as a prototype of a missionary (Jn 4:4–42), and the first witness of the resurrection is a woman (Jn 20:11–18).
The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria.
2 Likes
So you have read all scholarly textbooks on the subject? We have textbooks here in our home library that say the opposite. How are you defining consensus? I cannot understand why you would even try to make a claim that there would be a consensus view on such a nuanced topic
Of course not.
The overwhelming majority view on a subject or issue.
The specific view I am describing is that the Gospels are not firsthand accounts, but were written decades after the death of Jesus and based on previously existing material. There are, of course, controversies and disagreements over many details beyond this. But on this question, there is very broad agreement. Unless you think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is some radical group that is misrepresenting the current scholarship.
2 Likes
They are not representative of all New Testament scholarship. Their conclusions on many issues differs from that if Protestant views (they believe in purgatory while Protestant scholars do not, as one example)
It is your use of the words consensus and majority that I take issue with and find to be an illogical stance on this topic. How could you know what the majority of scholars think?
Even if this were true, the New Testament accounts would still be reliable. They were recorded by people close to the events, in recent history to the events. Surely the Catholic Bishops also see the Gospels as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus
I am retired now but during the span of my academic career I noticed a huge explosion in evangelical scholars at the annual AAR/SBL conferences when comparing 1979 with after-1986 until I retired around 2001, for example. And those evangelical scholars publish a lot of textbooks, so I would agree with Michelle in terms of being cautious about the consensus view. Of course, the evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox scholars are not the only ones who hold views on this topic contrary to the consensus you are describing.
Indeed, when I was a young grad student it could easily seem like the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis was the scholarly consensus on the Pentateuch which ruled the Biblical studies world. That soon changed and now it is not at all just the evangelicals which ridicule it. It was always nuanced but the former “textbook consensus” is now largely discredited, especially among the younger generations of scholars.
1 Like
We are giving it to you.
Not what I’m saying at all. Mass suicide of a group is completely different than a dozen or more people throughout the known Roman world putting themselves in dangerous situations in order to bring a message, create multiple written stories of that message, convince other people it’s true in order to create the evidence of church tradition we see in places like Turkey, Syria, India, and Ethiopia, imaintain the message under persecution, and create a narrative that shows them arguing about normal human kind of stuff, all while they had no political power and no extensive control over the people that believed the message.
How is fake different from not true, especially when it’s 4 written stories?
Thank you @Michelle for that less than accurate summary of the evidence that I have presented.
-
When challenged on my Wikipedia quote, I did the responsible thing and checked that the citations (to scholarly books) supported their statements. They did.
-
Your accusation of “quote mines” is unsubstantiated, unless and until you can provide evidence that they are quoted out of context. Lacking that you would appear to be simply ‘bearing false witness’ against ‘Gary’. I think there may be something in the Bible about that.
-
As of the time I made the “we have seen absolutely zero evidence to the contrary” comment, it was true – neither you nor anybody else on the thread had provided evidence to the contrary.
-
The claim that I was requesting a citation for was “That was a theory 100 years ago, but that is NOT the scholarly consensus of today.” None of your, very brief, quotes state that their opinions are the scholarly consensus, and three is insufficient of a number to prove a consensus in and of themselves. And very brief quotes are not citations.
-
William Lane Craig. Are you aware that whilst he may be idolised by many conservative Christians, he is viewed far less well among atheists. He may be feared for his skill and knowledge as a debater, but he is utterly despised for his dishonest win-at-all-costs tactics. This article – William Lane Craig - RationalWiki – gives a reasonable summary of the atheist indictment against him. So no Michelle, citing WLC at me does your cause no good whatsoever with me. Addendum: And no Michelle, WLC is not “a New Testament scholar”. He is a famous Christian Apologist (or perhaps “infamous” would be a more accurate adjective) and a very minor philosopher. Admittedly he makes so many claims (often not entirely accurate) about fields outside his expertise, that the credulous might make the mistake of thinking he’s a NT scholar, a theoretical physicist, etc.
-
18 isn’t that long a list. Also you don’t provide citations for them. How many of those 18 work at conservative Christian institutions? How many of those institutions have a Statement of Faith that the Bible is inerrant? It was never claimed that a majority of conservative Christian scholars held the view.
-
Nothing you quote gives any indication that NT Wright accepts the traditional authorship of the gospels, or that they were eyewitness accounts. This means that the accusation of quote-mining is “bearing false witness”.
-
Addendum: How early are your “early sources”? (My memory is that they aren’t particularly so, so likely don’t have first-hand knowledge of authorship.) The reason that they weren’t attributed to anybody else is likely to be because they were anonymous.
1 Like
-
“God veils the truth from non-believers” would seem to be the ideal self-serving excuse for any form of blatant illogic.
-
The Bible may say that scripture is more compelling than witnessing a miracle, but common sense would say that this is quite simply not true.
-
This sentiment is in any case contradicted by Jesus’ statement to Thomas. More of ‘God’s rather convenient veil’?
1 Like
I’ve read a few chapters of “Perceiving God” and want to get back to you. So far I have been disappointed in that Alston, the author, is primarily presenting a philosophical argument that the mystical experience for the superiority of Christian religious/mystical experiences. I haven’t reached the parts of them to non-Christian experiences. On the positive side if someone were looking for support or verification of of religious experiences they would find it in the case that Alston is presenting.
Perhaps my disappointment is that my interest in mysticism was sparked by the poetry of Rumi, a 13th century Sufi mystic. “Rumi embeds his theosophy (transcendental philosophy) like a string through the beads of his poems and stories. His main point and emphasis is the unity of being.”
I am not from the east or the west, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, or Zen;
I do not belong to any religion or cultural system;
I am neither body or soul, for I belong to the Divine Soul of my Lord, my Beloved.
~Rumi
1 Like
I’ve just shown that shown that we do not know this.
Yes, for theological reasons. Not because of historical, scientific or other evidence.
And if you think that is limited to Christianity, you are sorely mistaken.
Also, all that demonstrates is the fervour of their belief, not its accuracy. Muslim suicide bombers are also very fervant in their beliefs.
By “fake” I mean deliberately writing something you know to be untrue with the intent to deceive, as opposed to writing something one sincerely, but wrongly, believes to be true.
We’re talking about the Gospels, not the Pentateuch.
1 Like
Yes, and I am talking about all-too-easy claims which people all too often make about “scholarly consensus” concerning the Bible in general—especially when they have very little idea what is and isn’t the actual consensus. And I can compare what was taken for granted as “the consensus” in the 1960’s and 1970’s with today, and I notice some major turnarounds. (However, the general public hasn’t always gotten that memo and assumes that no change has taken place.)
What the general public thinks is “the consensus” in an academic field doesn’t always correspond with the actual consensus (or lack thereof) for a given field. Indeed, the scholarship is often far more complicated and nuanced—while the general public tends to favor simplicity and easy labels.
1 Like
Which doesn’t exactly help your case, does it? In fact, it makes your case far worse. How can one reliably determine whether a “miracle” happened 2000 years ago when the interpretation of your sole source of evidence is so subject to the changing whims of the time?
1 Like
It is not about a “case.” In any case—no pun intended—this is taking a turn that loses my interest.
1 Like
A question that bugs me:
One of the reasons that the traditional attributions are often played up is so that they can be claimed as purported “eye-witness” accounts (or as-told-by-an-eyewitness in the case of Mark). But neither Luke nor Paul (whose protege he was) were eye witnesses. How does this logic work for the Gospel attributed to Luke then?
1 Like