The Historicity of the Gospels

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments, are a living witness since they have been in the custody of living communities their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively. These scrolls were read regularly in public assemblies throughout church history and the New Testament was prolificately and meticulously copied, now with some 30,000 scrolls extant. They are by far the best preserved documents from antiquity, there is no close second. Starting in 144 AD questions were raised regarding the canon of Scripture and various gnostic circulated claiming New Testament authority. The church opposed revisions and maintained the scrolls known to have apostolic authority. Matthew and Mark in particular have sone of the oldest and best scrolls, some dating back to the first century. The church knew and does know their own sacred writings. Matthew being the mothership of bibliograhical credibikity, skeptics are woefully inadequete in their evidential arguments to the contrary.

Grace and peace,
Mark
300,000 copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing.

Heck, there are probably a million copies of supermarket tabloids. Are they three times as reliable as the Bible?

The problem is that the original copies of the gospels were probably written some 50 years after the events, and we do not know the chain of custody from the first writing to the point where they are known to be commonly used.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I already offered to you what completely defeats Your assertions. That from the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time.

I'm getting the impression you do not even care to engage, as you have avoided many of my responses entirely, for no other reason than it appears you do not wish to address them.... Your brief responses has lent absolutely no credence to a rebuttal of any sort. Just instead blank assertions...

However, I'll bite.... Please elaborate as to what you exactly mean by,
'the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time', and why is this relevant to truth?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Because the dead don’t rise?

In such cases, the only way of validation to 'one-off' events would be none other than direct eyewitness attestation. And yet, we really have none. Hence, the reason I pointed out Matthew 27:52-53. Again, what is the point to raise many of the dead for many to see, only to have absolutely no one report seeing as such???

Seems rather pointless really. It's rather convenient that many claims, to any eyewitness attestation, comes only from the biased book of claims itself, the authors of the Bible. And, there exists no secular reports of such; simply reporting.... 'Hey, I was walking through town today to get supplies and I saw zombies walking around!' This might begin to corroborate such a fantastic event. And it would seem well worthy of report; being very sensational and all. Heck, if 'many' saw as such, I would expect a few recorded reports. And if many could not write, I'm sure God would also assure the presence of literate witnesses. Otherwise, there exists really no good reason to display such an event. As stated prior, He might as well just have had a miracle performed on Mars.

So to recap, witnessing one-off events, like the rising dead REQUIRE direct witnesses reporting. And yet, we have none in this case. And in the case for the resurrection, all we have is second hand testimony; meaning, the authors of such writings were not direct witnesses themselves, and most likely reported from stories of oral tradition alone, or copying existing circulating writings. And when one looks at the natural progression from Mark to John, one can see an increasing progression of legendary embellishment.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
300,000 copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing.

Heck, there are probably a million copies of supermarket tabloids. Are they three times as reliable as the Bible?

The problem is that the original copies of the gospels were probably written some 50 years after the events, and we do not know the chain of custody from the first writing to the point where they are known to be commonly used.
We do know the chain of custody, they were circulated among the churches. 30,000 extant copies with less then 2% text variation is phenomenal. These scrolls were copued a lot the same way Jewish sacred texts were, John Mark and Barnabas were Levites so it's safe to say our Jewish brothers taught the church how it's done. When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered the oldest Masorite text was from the 10th century. The skeptics said aha, we will see how much they were altered, normal text variation was all that was found.

Again it is remarkable and extremely consistant the lack of positive evidence supporting the skeptic. But who needs it, unbelief doesn't need proof, just off hand satire will do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm getting the impression you do not even care to engage, as you have avoided many of my responses entirely, for no other reason than it appears you do not wish to address them.... Your brief responses has lent absolutely no credence to a rebuttal of any sort. Just instead blank assertions...

However, I'll bite.... Please elaborate as to what you exactly mean by,
'the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time', and why is this relevant to truth?
If you don’t want to engage the entire 2000 years of scholarship then it is futile to converse with you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We do know the chain of custody, they were circulated among the churches. 30,000 extant copies with less then 2% text variation is phenomenal. These scrolls were copued a lot the same way Jewish sacred texts were, John Mark and Barnabas were Levites so it's safe to say our Jewish brothers taught the church how it's done.
That simply is not true. We simply do not know what happened in the churches from around 70 AD to 120 AD. We have no knowledge that the gospels as we know them were received and recognized. We don't know who touched them and what changes were made.
When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered the oldest Masorite text was from the 10th century. The skeptics said aha, we will see how much they were altered, normal text variation was all that was found.
The preservation of Old Testament scriptures is irrelevant to how the gospels were received in that period. But for the record, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed significant changes. See Pages 6-10, 12: autumn 1990 THE JEREMIAH DILEMMA Farrell Till Before the discovery of the .
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh dear. Polycarp and Ignatius in no way credit the words of the book of Matthew as being written by an eyewitness. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian are too late to be a reliable witness of who wrote the gospels.
They just use his words. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. These men were bishops and theologians who were taught by the men the apostles appointed bishops. This is the unbroken chain. The chain of custody.

Huh? The ancients thought the sun went around the earth. Does that prove the sun goes around the earth?

The ancients were sometimes wrong, yes?
The closest to the actual autographs have better information than the 21st century. There has been a living church along with the Scriptures since Pentecost.

Against Heresies Book III.1
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the discipleand interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If you don’t want to engage the entire 2000 years of scholarship then it is futile to converse with you.

You have again avoided everything specific I have addressed.

Furthermore, you did not even clarify my question:

You stated: ''the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time'.


What do you mean by the above assertion?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You stated: ''the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time'.

What do you mean by the above assertion?
It’s not an assertion but a historical fact. The church catholic has been since the day of Pentecost.

I know public school education does not mention this. But it’s history the West fails to teach even though none of us would have ancient history if not for the Catholic monastics in the 10th century AD. Everything you and Carrier knows of Western civilization and it’s history we all owe thanks to Catholic monks transcribing manuscript fragments of Caesar’s Gallic Wars and other classics.

So everything you trust as history was brought to you by tonsured monastics in the 10th century AD.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
It’s not an assertion but a historical fact. The church catholic has been since the day of Pentecost.

I know public school education does not mention this. But it’s history the West fails to teach even though none of us would have ancient history if not for the Catholic monastics in the 10th century AD. Everything you and Carrier knows of Western civilization and it’s history we all owe thanks to Catholic monks transcribing manuscript fragments of Caesar’s Gallic Wars and other classics.

So everything you trust as history was brought to you by tonsured monastics in the 10th century AD.

So what does any of this have to do with any of my many observations? Even if what you stated is entirely true, then how might one validate the walking dead, when there exists no eyewitnesses? Again, broadcasting mundane historical events, which are certain to have happened in history, is entirely irrelevant to claims of the supernatural.

In regards to a bias, which I've mentioned, what coincidentally do the Catholics believe? That's right, a resurrection ;)


So it almost sounds like, to me, that since the Catholics were the only ones gracious enough to record events in history, that it must ALL be true?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So it almost sounds like, to me, that since the Catholics were the only ones gracious enough to record events in history, that it must ALL be true?
What it means is if you trust your history of Western civilization it came from a Christian community. Don’t worry they were the best educated in the world at the time.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
What it means is if you trust your history of Western civilization it came from a Christian community. Don’t worry they were the best educated in the world at the time.

So let's run with your assertion and see how this pans out...

The only ones recording or writing of antiquity, were people whom believed that people rose from the dead?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments, are a living witness since they have been in the custody of living communities their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively. These scrolls were read regularly in public assemblies throughout church history and the New Testament was prolificately and meticulously copied, now with some 30,000 scrolls extant. They are by far the best preserved documents from antiquity, there is no close second. Starting in 144 AD questions were raised regarding the canon of Scripture and various gnostic circulated claiming New Testament authority. The church opposed revisions and maintained the scrolls known to have apostolic authority. Matthew and Mark in particular have sone of the oldest and best scrolls, some dating back to the first century. The church knew and does know their own sacred writings. Matthew being the mothership of bibliograhical credibikity, skeptics are woefully inadequete in their evidential arguments to the contrary.

Grace and peace,
Mark
Indeed and the extant manuscripts are mostly Greek with Latin second and also Syriac.

We used to have an Aramaic and Syriac scholar who used to post here.

@SteveCaruso you still around?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
300,000 copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing.

Heck, there are probably a million copies of supermarket tabloids. Are they three times as reliable as the Bible?

The problem is that the original copies of the gospels were probably written some 50 years after the events, and we do not know the chain of custody from the first writing to the point where they are known to be commonly used.
Recommend further studies. It is true the earlier 16th century Bible translations used Greek manuscripts only a few hundred years old.

Yet all critical text translations we have today are from Greek texts reaching back to before the 4th century AD due to discoveries in the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that the original copies of the gospels were probably written some 50 years after the events, and we do not know the chain of custody from the first writing to the point where they are known to be commonly used.
Other than Revelation and possibly the letters of John and his Gospel account, most of the NT autographs were complete and in circulation before 70AD

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That simply is not true. We simply do not know what happened in the churches from around 70 AD to 120 AD. We have no knowledge that the gospels as we know them were received and recognized. We don't know who touched them and what changes were made.
Where did you get that from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Other than Revelation and possibly the letters of John and his Gospel account, most of the NT autographs were complete and in circulation before 70AD

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

And yet the earliest complete manuscript in existence does not correlate with your assertion.

The earliest found is in the 4th century; in Greek, and version Septuagint. Fragmented text exists as early as the second century. But again, are very small pieces.

Prior to this, all we have to place such hopes upon, is oral tradition. And one can only guess what happens to a story told hundreds/thousands of times over.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And yet the earliest complete manuscript in existence does not correlate with your assertion.

The earliest found is in the 4th century; in Greek, and version Septuagint. Fragmented text exists as early as the second century. But again, are very small pieces.

Prior to this, all we have to place such hopes upon, is oral tradition. And one can only guess what happens to a story told hundreds/thousands of times over.
This is telling. I'm sorry but you are exhibiting a lack of knowledge of what extent manuscripts consist of.

The internal evidence and early external evidence is what determines the date of the NT books. The manuscript fragments and textual class assist in dating the circulation which for the NT would be a fragment from John dated in Koine Greek to 120 AD. Which given John lived longer would be about 25 years from penning the autograph. Which means the Gospel was in wide circulation during that timeframe.

Do you have any non Christian documents you would like to share from that era or earlier which has even a close second to the NT manuscript record? Answer you won't find one. That's why your secular history which you trust is as good as 10th century monastics and the few manuscripts they had of works of antiquity. As opposed to that 10s of thousands for the NT.

Check out the meaning of internal and external evidence for the NT books. Considering the NT books are quoted in early church writings in the first century shows these books already in circulation. As the church grew in the 2nd century and persecution decreased the quoting of the NT explodes throughout the Empire from Rome to Greece to Palestine to Egypt.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That simply is not true. We simply do not know what happened in the churches from around 70 AD to 120 AD. We have no knowledge that the gospels as we know them were received and recognized. We don't know who touched them and what changes were made.
Considering Matthew, Mark, Luke and several of Paul's epistles were quoted through the end of the 1st century and exponentially into the 2nd century, I don't see how your statement holds water.


The quoted books are: Mt, Mk, Lk, Acts, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation



Here are the rest of the quotes:

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clementch.35 p.14

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes one-fourth of Galatians 6:7 "God is not mocked" (3 out of 14 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.5 p.34

Ignatius: Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians according to Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians ch.12 p.55

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Ephesians 4:26 "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, …It is declared then in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry, and sin not,’ and , ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’" (12/12 words of the verse) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.12 p.35

Ignatius quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:17 Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp ch.1 p.93

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 2 Thessalonians 3:15a (5 out of 9 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.11 p.35

Ignatius quotes one-fourth of 1 Timothy 1:1 "Jesus Christ who is our hope" Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians ch.1 p.64

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes 1 Timothy 6:7 "Knowing, therefore, that ‘as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out,’ (11 out of 12 words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.4 p.34

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 1 Timothy 6:10a. "But the love of money is the root of all evils." (8 out of 21 words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.4 p.34

Polycarp: (100-155 A.D.) quotes 2 Timothy 2:12 He [the Lord] has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, ‘we shall also reign together with Him,’ provided only we believe." Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.5 p.34

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes half of Titus 3:1b "Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being ‘ready to every good work.’ (6 out of 13 words) 1 Clement ch.2 vol.1 p.5

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Heb 1:4. "’who being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: ‘thou are my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’ And again He said to Him, ‘site thou at Mu right hand, until I make Thine enemies thy footstool.’" 1 Clement ch.36 vol.1 p.15

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes half of Heb 3:2b 1 Clement ch.17 vol.1 p.10

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes three-fourths of Heb 10:37 1 Clement ch.23 vol.1 p.11

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes James 4:6 (same as 1 Peter 5:5b; Proverbs 3:34) 1 Clement ch.30 vol.1 p.13

Polycarp (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of 1 Peter 2:22 in Letter to the Philippians ch.8 p.35.

Polycarp (110-155 A.D.) quotes the first half of 1 Peter 3:9. Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33. He also quotes the last fourth of 1 Peter 1:11 in ch.5 p.34. He quotes the first half of 1 Peter 2:23 in ch.8 p.35

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 1 John 4:3a,c (13 out of 34 Greek words, with gaps) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippiansch.7 p.34

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes: Revelation 22:12 p.14 (This is also the same as Isaiah 40:10; 62:11) 1 Clement ch.34 vol.1 p.14
 
  • Winner
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That simply is not true. We simply do not know what happened in the churches from around 70 AD to 120 AD. We have no knowledge that the gospels as we know them were received and recognized. We don't know who touched them and what changes were made.

Speak for yourself, the churches knew their own sacred writings then and we know them now.

The preservation of Old Testament scriptures is irrelevant to how the gospels were received in that period. But for the record, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed significant changes. See Pages 6-10, 12: autumn 1990 THE JEREMIAH DILEMMA Farrell Till Before the discovery of the .

That's normal text variation and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not a complete Old Testament, and some of the scrolls while authentic have some issues. It's the living witness of the Masoretic Text that is preferred, although the Dead Sea scrolls did prove to be of enormous worth in verifying that the Masoretic text underwent little change.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0