Is the New Testament historically accurate? (agnostic, believing, priests, disciple)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

RESPONSE:

Except that there is no evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitness (who could get their stories to coincide). If you have actual evidence (not merely an appeal to a tradition), please post your citation.

From the Introduction to Matthew: New American Bible, Revised Edition

"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."

Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It? - Biblical Archaeology Society

"We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. We do know that John is a gospel apart, however. Early Matthew, Mark and Luke are so alike in their telling that they are called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning “seen together”—the parallels are clear when they are looked at side by side. Matthew and Luke follow the version of events in Mark, which is thought by scholars to be the earliest and most historically accurate Gospel. John, however, does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not, something that has been noted in Gospel of John commentary for hundreds—even thousands—of years.

Based on opinion and no proof that Mark was first. That is a "modern" invention with ... no proof. No way to prove it at all. just an opinion and not universally held and not held in the first few centuries, sooooo.....................

The lack of parallel is due to the differing back grounds of the writers and the view they were focused on of each event. Any semi-intelligent person can see it by reading them. Intelligent ones, (not those intelligent in their own eyes) see it more clearly.

In general the early "fathers" had no issues with it:

Papias of Hierapolis, of the (second century B.C.). Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)

Origen (3rd century B.C.) made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)

Someone living nearly 1900 years later is not a good source for information unless he has information valid from the 1st and 2nd centuries, not just self exalting opinion (look what I discovered, etc).

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by bluecheese

None of the Bible can be considered historically accurate, imo.

Originally Posted by bluecheese

That isn't true. There is no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However he probably existed even if the nonsense claimed for him is grossly exaggerated or a lie!

While that is your opinion, it is not the opinion held by the majority of scholars and historians who study the matter. Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic, and who doesn't believe that everything in the Gospels is historical, nevertheless states that the Gospels are, and must be considered as historical sources of information. Quoting Ehrman;

''The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.''

''At the same time, there is historical information in the Gospels.''

''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''

''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.''

[Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman, pp. 71-73.]

Now, concerning the existence of an historical Jesus, Ehrman has this to say;

Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.

[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 12

Ehrman, while not himself believing that Jesus actually rose from the dead, recognizes that the early disciples of Jesus believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus.

''He was crucified. This, of course radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all--we don't know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.

[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 164]

Scholars recognize in Paul's writings a number of what are called pre-Pauline traditions. These are traditions which can be traced back to the beginning of the Church. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is one of those pre-Pauline traditions or creeds. Quoting Bart Ehrman yet again;

I can start with that basic confession of faith that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, a confession that was passed along to him by those who came before, as he himself states: ''For I delivered to over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures ant that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.''

[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, p.249]

And;

The apostle Paul knew several of the people who passed along such stories, as we have seen, as he mentions traditions that he inherited from believers before him (1 Corinthians 11:22-24; 15:3-5) and names several of Jesus' close intimates as personal acquaintances: the disciples Cephas and John, along with Jesus's brother James.'
The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection before Luke, before Mark, and before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.

[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, pp.260-61]

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the gospel (15:1) which Paul said he received. And he received it from others. Again, he probably received this tradition during his visit with Peter and James when he met with them three years after his conversion which means that this tradition goes back even further.

Right from the beginning, then, it was believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. The question then becomes, Why did they believe it? After ruling out things such as mass - hallucinations, since Jesus was seen on different occasions and under various circumstances, or mistaken identity, the best reason why the early disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead was because He did. But many modern day skeptics will not be convinced.


In the event that you might be interested, the following YouTube video is a speech given by Dr. Gary R. Habermas on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and is a recognized authority on the resurrection of Jesus. He has written twenty-five books, including 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q

[StanJP]

The Bible's importance and usefulness is summarized in John 20:30-31

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanJP

The Bible's importance and usefulness is summarized in John 20:30-31

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

True. Then we have to see what is involved in believing as it is an active process not a static one.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

The author is only regarded well in the most liberal circles. I would regard his viewpoint
as no more than personal opinion, or his characterization as shaped by non-traditional
thought as was tought in the Vatican 2 neo-seminaries of his time. Here is a post I
left about this in more detail (click here). If you're looking for a much better history
of the Church or the Reformation, I recommend Philip Hughes as his works were published
before V2 and are not stained by contemporary philosophies.

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by expatCA

True. Then we have to see what is involved in believing as it is an active process not a static one.

Indeed.

[TRANSPONDER]

So there we are. This opinion that Matthew could well have been first, or perhaps Mark was first but never mind, stories about Jesus were circulating before Paul, rehash the 'Apostles must have believed the resurrection' argument and then appeal to ongoing faith.

Is it any wonder that getting people to look at the Bible with a really Open Mind rather than one open to anything other that anything to make the question is an uphill task?

Out of the 12 bits of evidence (this relates to the Habermass vid above)
[SIZE=2]4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]5 and 6 are the central pivot of the resurrection claim. And they are flawed. Totally flawed.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]I do not understand why all these scholars and experts do not see this, or if they do I haven't heard it.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]The Bible says in three discrepant stories (mark doesn't have one) that there was a literal risen Jesus. The basis for believing those claims is totally vapid.
[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]The Bible in just one very dubious source - acts - claims that they became transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]The doubts are questionable enough. The bold proclaiming is even less credible. The dying for the faith in based on later church tradition and pretty dodgy.
[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]Scholarshoip, religious or secular, has made a bad mistake in taking the NT on trust...simply because they have taken it on trust![/SIZE]

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by Mike555

You quoted a source to support your view, and now I will quote a couple of sources which hold an opposing view.

1.) Drs. John F. Walvood and Charles H. Dyer write;

''History uniformly testifies that the first gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples. All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.''

''Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew's own work and that it is the inspired Word of God.''

[Matthew, John F. Walvoord and Charles H. Dyer, pp. 11, 13]

The comments above are made while having taken into consideration the two main arguments against Matthean authorship; 1.) The question of whether the Gospel we have is a translation of an earlier Hebrew work by Matthew; and 2.) the question of whether Matthew is heavily indebted to the gospel of Mark for most of his facts.

2) Assuming Markan priority (Mark being written before Matthew), and regarding the issue of whether Matthew would have depended on Mark for much of his material, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg comments;

''It is often alleged that the apostle Matthew would scarcely have consulted, much less extensively relied on, canonical Mark, written by one who was not even a follower of Jesus during most of his ministry. But early church tradition regularly associates Mark with Peter. If Matthew recognized Mark's Gospel as in some sense reflecting Peter's ''memoirs,'' he would have had many reasons to consult and follow it: Peter was one of the inner core of three disciples who experienced certain things Matthew did not (cf. e.g., Matt 17:1; 26:37), by the 60s Peter was probably the most prominent apostle in Christian circles, and it is always helpful and interesting to see how other have already tackled a project one wishes to undertake.''

''When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.''

[The New American Commentary, Matthew, vol. 22 Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 43-44]

Matthean authorship of the Gospel which is attributed to him is certainly defensible.

RESPONSE:

Let's look at some the claims you made and and an argument against the Apostle Matthew's authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

>>>All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' <<<

RESPONSE: What existing copies of the Gospel of Matthew do you have that are dated earlier than 325 AD?

>>>and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.'<<

RESPONSE: "unanimous" you say? Please give the dates and names of the earliest that stated what you claim.

RESPONSE: The writer of Matthew's gospel does not identify himself, and it wasn't until 4th century Eusebius that we find a claim that he was based a second century claim by Papias (who provides no evidence) who even Eusebius wasn't too bright.

RESPONSE: But the internal evidence in "Matthew's Gospel" shows that he was not an eyewitness. Jesus is shown to have conversed with the other apostles and they with him. But nowhere in Matthew's gospel are they claimed to have spoken with Matthew or him with them. What is the inescapable conclusion then about the Apostle's authorship of the gospel?

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by expatCA

>>Based on opinion and no proof that Mark was first. That is a "modern" invention with ... no proof. No way to prove it at all. just an opinion and not universally held and not held in the first few centuries, sooooo....................<<.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you are not familiar with how arguments about alleged facts of history work. The person making the assertion has to prove it, before anyone has to disprove what has not yet been proven. So what "proof" do you have that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. Did the author say so? Did he sign it?

>>All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.'All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.'<<

RESPONSE: As I pointed out elsewhere, we have no Gospel of Matthew dated earlier than 325 AD. Matthew never claimed to be the author, and throughout the gospel there is no report of the Apostles or Jesus speaking to Matthew, or him speaking to them.

>>The lack of parallel is due to the differing back grounds of the writers and the view they were focused on of each event. Any semi-intelligent person can see it by reading them. Intelligent ones, (not those intelligent in their own eyes) see it more clearly.<<

RESPONSE: If all the gospels are "God breathed" (inspired), how can they contain any contradictions unless God made the contradictions.

>>In general the early "fathers" had no issues with it:

Papias of Hierapolis, of the (second century B.C.). Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)<<

RESPONSE: Wasn't Eusebius a 4th century historian who belittled the competence of Papias? And "oracles" ( or sayings) are not a gospel.

>>Origen (3rd century B.C.) made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)<<

RESPONSE: Origen, 184/185 – 253/254), spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. And his writings were far removed from Jesus' period to be a valid historical record ofa gospel's authorship.

>>Someone living nearly 1900 years later is not a good source for information unless he has information valid from the 1st and 2nd centuries, not just self exalting opinion (look what I discovered, etc).

RESPONSE: Actually, what he can determine from the internal evidence and knows the source the author used and quoted, he may be.

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by StanJP

The Bible's importance and usefulness is summarized in John 20:30-31

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

RESPONSE: Who wrote that and was he a witness or a later commentator? Any evidence?