The Historicity of the Gospels

[doubtingmerle]

In fact the actual external evidence shows us the NT books later as canon were in wide circulation and being used by the church fathers and in church liturgy.

Please show me one piece of evidence that the four gospel were widely circulated before 120 AD.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because most of them are almost identical, even though they all have some kind of text variation. I could understand your skepticism if we only had a few, which is the case for most writings from antiquity.

sure, because they were all copied from the copies accepted by the church in the third and fourth century.

 

[mark kennedy]

sure, because they were all copied from the copies accepted by the church in the third and fourth century.

These copies were all over the Mediterranean world, Syria had their own copies and they are nearly identical to the ones in the west and spread over vast geography and across diverse cultures and conditions. Yet they maintain there fidelity with almost scientific precision. Now churches have vast libraries and universities but for hundreds of years, most churches were in peoples homes. The New Testament was preserved a lot the same way the Hebrew Scriptures were preserved, that's not a point in dispute. You might not think God holds you accountable but surly you understand someone who does. I'm going to be a lot more careful with something I'm taking care of if I think I might have to answer to a judge for, your taxes come to mind, how careful are you about that? Now multiply that by eternity and you get an idea of how seriously the church took the Apostolic witness.

 

[mark kennedy]

sure, because they were all copied from the copies accepted by the church in the third and fourth century.

By the forth century 20% of the Roman empire was Christian and there were comparative populations from Syria to Egypt. They did not disagree substantially on the Scriptures, and you would have us believe Byzantine bureaucrats fabricated the whole thing from folktales, you have real problems with not substantiating your pedantic rhetoric.

 

[doubtingmerle]

By the forth century 20% of the Roman empire was Christian and there were comparitive populations from Syria to Egypt. They did not disagree substantially on the Scriptures, and you would have us believe Byzintinian beuricrates fabricated the whole thing from folktales, you have real problems with not substantiating your pedantic rhetoric.

Ah, so if a religion spreads widely it must be true? I'll keep that in mind when I talk to a Muslim, a Mormon, and a Hindu.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah, so if a religion spreads widely it must be true? I'll keep that in mind when I talk to a Muslim, a Mormon, and a Hindu.

You should keep it in mind when you talk to them, you have every reason to be skeptical, even devout Christians can be highly critical of Scripture. Just bear in mind there is a cultural context and some small group of clerics in a dusty room in the Vatican didn't come up with the New Testament, it didn't show up in an archaeological dig somewhere. It's a living history and if you don't believe it, then you don't believe it. I don't believe Ulysses encountered a cyclops in the straights south of Greece, but I believe Greece sacked Troy. I don't happen to believe an angel spoke to Joseph Smith or Mohamed, but I keep myself reserved when addressing why I think the way I do. You should also bear in mind there are windows into history and culture here, even if you don't believe the core message, you should really give some thought to the substantive elements that make Scripture credible as history.

 

[redleghunter]

Ah, so if a religion spreads widely it must be true? I'll keep that in mind when I talk to a Muslim, a Mormon, and a Hindu.

That wasn’t his point. The point is the very early church was small in comparison to the Empire’s general population. That this church was spread across the Empire from Gaul to Babylon yet their Scriptures and faith vary little is a testimony of the meticulous care they handled both Scriptures and the rule of faith.

Why is 120 AD your stake in the ground?

 

[Abraxos]

Ah, so if a religion spreads widely it must be true? I'll keep that in mind when I talk to a Muslim, a Mormon, and a Hindu.

Interestingly, Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism have it's roots in Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[mark kennedy]

That wasn’t his point. The point is the very early church was small in comparison to the Empire’s general population. That this church was spread across the Empire from Gaul to Babylon yet their Scriptures and faith vary little is a testimony of the meticulous care they handled both Scriptures and the rule of faith.

Why is 120 AD your stake in the ground?

I'd kind of like to hear an answer to that myself.

 

[mark kennedy]

Interestingly, Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism have it's roots in Judeo-Christian tradition.

I was with you until Hinduism, they are kind of independent as far as I can tell.

 

[Abraxos]

I was with you until Hinduism, they are kind of independent as far as I can tell.

Heh, interestingly there is compelling reasons that Hinduism derived from Thomas Christianity
with Isa as the center of worship. Hinduism as it exists today has its origin from the Thomas Ministry
and it is simply the Gnostic form of Thomas Christianity. You may know Thomas as "doubting Thomas" one of the apostles of Jesus.

This can be substantiated by historical facts based on objective researches in archaeology, linguistics, and written documentations about the facts of Indian History during the period immediately after the Mission of St. Thomas in India.

But that is a whole other can of worms I don't think a few here a quite keen to delve into.

 

[mark kennedy]

Heh, interestingly there is compelling reasons that Hinduism derived from Thomas Christianity
with Isa as the center of worship. Hinduism as it exists today has its origin from the Thomas Ministry
and it is simply the Gnostic form of Thomas Christianity. You may know Thomas as "doubting Thomas" one of the apostles of Jesus.

This can be substantiated by historical facts based on objective researches in archaeology, linguistics, and written documentations about the facts of Indian History during the period immediately after the Mission of St. Thomas in India.

But that is a whole other can of worms I don't think a few here a quite keen to delve into.

Hinduism goes back a lot longer then the first century is all I was saying.

 

[Abraxos]

Hinduism goes back a lot longer then the first century is all I was saying.

I thought so as well, but apparently Hinduism did not exist before the second century, A D. And Sanskrit did not exist before the second century AD.

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought so as well, but apparently Hinduism did not exist before the second century, A D. And Sanskrit did not exist before the second century AD.

From what I'm getting Hinduism goes back to 1500 BC and the Verdict religion. In India like China they can be very eclectic, taking and leaving what they like and don't like about other religions. As far as Thomas, I guess he made it as far as India but one of the founders of Hinduism seems a stretch.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That wasn’t his point. The point is the very early church was small in comparison to the Empire’s general population. That this church was spread across the Empire from Gaul to Babylon yet their Scriptures and faith vary little is a testimony of the meticulous care they handled both Scriptures and the rule of faith.

There is no question that once Christianity got going it spread over much of the ancient world. The issue is when the four gospels were widely received.

Why is 120 AD your stake in the ground?

There is no fixed date here. At the beginning of the second century we have people referring to only some sayings of Jesus and no mention of the four gospels.By the middle of the second century we have Justin referring to memoirs of the apostles that do not match what we know as the four gospels. By the late second century we find the books mentioned by name and then an avalanche of quotes followed.

 

[redleghunter]

There is no fixed date here. At the beginning of the second century we have people referring to only some sayings of Jesus and no mention of the four gospels.By the middle of the second century we have Justin referring to memoirs of the apostles that do not match what we know as the four gospels. By the late second century we find the books mentioned by name and then an avalanche of quotes followed.

I shared the below on your hospitality thread:

Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

In the above you will see Augustine, Jerome and Eusebius mainly. They are quoting from early 2nd century sources and works they had available in their time.

The avalanche was due to several factors. The persecution of Christians in the latter part of the 1st century was eased in many places, the rise of heresies had bishops in many of the larger cities with seminaries writing refutations which we have today. Also as mentioned centers of education rose in the Levant, Greece and Alexandria. Due to this many of the regional epistles were shared and copied.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I tend to think Matthean priority is correct. My impression is that this better explains why Mark didn't include the resurrection appearances- they are contradictory between Matthew and other gospels, and Mark generally only writes narratives where they agree.

If I only went by scholarship and experts' opinions and tradition and didn't think for myself, I would go by Marcan priority. Mathew seems first in the Traditions, but Christian Tradition is not absolute on the question.

one comment suggests that Matthew wrote a Sayings Collection in Hebrew first. In other words, he wrote HEBREW Q. That saying's collection Q Informed Mark in Greek. Mark was the first to write the Gospel in GREEK for Saint Peter. Luke and Greek Matthew used Greek Mark. Which uses sayings of Jesus from Matthews original Hebrew Q Sayings Collection document?

 

[rakovsky]

one comment suggests that Matthew wrote a Sayings Collection in Hebrew first. In other words, he wrote HEBREW Q. That saying's collection Q Informed Mark in Greek. Mark was the first to write the Gospel in GREEK for Saint Peter. Luke and Greek Matthew used Greek Mark. Which uses sayings of Jesus from Matthews original Hebrew Q Sayings Collection document?

According to the "Q" Theory, Luke uses sayings of Jesus from the "Q" Sayings collection, which it shares with Matthew.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's often assumed that the gospel writers could not have been conveying actual history because they were people who believed in Jesus. The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy. But why couldn't the opposite be true? Why couldn't it be that only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history?

Are you familiar with Neo-Orthodoxy? I believe that is potentially closer to what you are arguing for. Or am I mistaken?

Sure, the gospel writers regularly report unrealistic things without the faintest mention that they might be wrong. For instance, the writer of Matthew reports that many dead people came out of the graves and appeared to many. How does he know that? He doesn't tell us. But seeing that he probably wrote a generation after Jesus, he would surely be skeptical of his source, even if it was very reliable. People don't come out of the graves. And certainly there are not times when many dead people come out of the graves together. And certainly, had it happened, everybody would have been talking about. And yet everybody seems to be silent about this but Matthew. How could the writer of Matthew have possibly known that his source was right in such circumstances? He appears to have an overwhelming trust in this without question.

When one's bias causes someone to have overwhelming trust in something that appears he should not be trusting, then perhaps the rest of his writings are influenced by his bias.

If one understands Jewish modes of storytelling, the ending of Matthew does not necessarily discount the Gospel as truthful. It simply does not use modern conventions of historiography.

 

[FireDragon76]

From what I'm getting Hinduism goes back to 1500 BC and the Verdict religion. In India like China they can be very eclectic, taking and leaving what they like and don't like about other religions. As far as Thomas, I guess he made it as far as India but one of the founders of Hinduism seems a stretch.

He's probably referring to Vedanta Hinduism, and getting the dates somewhat off. Vedanta was a mystical school founded by Shankara in the late ancient period. But actual Hinduism is far older, as you point out.