Archaeology of the New Testament

[ZenMode]

I gave you the quote.

Ehrman says since nobody wrote their name on the gospels, they are anonymous, and we can't prove who wrote them.

He never said we can't use circumstantial evidence and logical inference to make educated guesses about the authors, which is exactly what I have done.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence for your claim that the gospels were written by random obscure people who were ten steps removed from anyone associated with the original apostles.

Hollering that they're written in Greek isn't even a real argument.

For God's sake man, you didn't even know Luke was not a companion of Jesus and never even met the man.

I never claimed Ehrman believes we are certain about who the gospel authors are. Back track this thread to familiarize yourself with what I really wrote.

I provided multiple lines of evidence about how we can make reasonably good inferences about who the authors were. My reasoning does not totally rely on Ehrmam.

Right, Ehrman wrote that you have to take seriously the claims of early church bishops about the gospel authors, although they don't prove anything and he himself is not inclined to buy it.

80 percent of everything I've written in this thread is consistent with what Ehrman has written or said. He is a valuable resource.

But he is not a prophet who has all the correct answers.

I'm not like you. I don't self select sources that I already know beforehand are already to going to agree with my preconceived beliefs. That's a terrible way to learn. Ehrman has great arguments, but other religious scholars sometimes have better arguments than him.

So much of this post reinforces my belief that you haven't actual read Ehrman. He does not just say "since nobody wrote their name on the gospels, they are anonymous, and we can't prove who wrote them."

IF you had actual read/watched his thoughts on the Gospels, and most other books of the NT, you'd know that there is so much more to determining who did/didn't write any given book or when the book was written. There's analysis of language, there's analysis of how, for example, Paul wrote, there's looking at the original Greek writing and seeing that the writers was not fluent in Greek, which means that it wouldn't have been written by this person or that person. There's also references to events in the writing that make it impossible for a specific person to be the author... unless they were 130 years old.

That's only going off of memory and I know I'm forgetting things.

IOW, you are ignoring so much in an attempt to keep believing what you want to believe.

 

[Cypress]

Right, but you can also be a liar without committing crimes.

Irrelevant to anything I wrote. This discussion isn't about garden variety liars.

The 9/11 hijackers were true believers, because they wouldn't have killed themselves for a belief they actually knew was a lie.

Paul wouldn't have given up the comfortable life of a Pharisee, and gone 180 degrees from oppressing Christians to taking on the dangerous life of an itinerant Christian teacher unless he genuinely believed he had some kind of a radical epiphany or vision. You're free to say he had a hallucination. But claiming he lied about it or had an epileptic seizure doesn't add up.

I said no such thing. I said they made things up to further their cause and/or give legitimacy to their beliefs. I said they made things up to further their cause and/or give legitimacy to their beliefs.

People don't die or submit to execution to cover up lies they know are untrue. These people genuinely believed they saw the death and resurrection of Jesus.

For example, claiming that a book was written by Mark when there's no reason to believe it was.

Yes, there are reasons.

1) The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings.

2) It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians like Mark and Luke who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James. You said it yourself: the early church bishops were interested in creating authoritative accounts to support their beliefs

3) The evidence clearly shows the early church fathers genuinely attempted (if not always successfully) to keep material written by frauds and fakes out of the canon. There were dozens of gospels written, but many of them were recognized to be frauds, and the church only selected four they were reasonably certain were written by eyewitnesses or those who knew the eyewitnesses.


Any one single reason by itself isn't utterly convincing. But collectively they point to the best explanation is that a Christian named Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.


The problem is you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your position.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

He never said we can't use circumstantial evidence and logical inference to make educated guesses...

 

[ZenMode]

Irrelevant to anything I wrote. This discussion isn't about garden variety liars.

It is from my POV.

The 9/11 hijackers were true believers, because they wouldn't have killed themselves for a belief they actually knew was a lie.

Right and I'm sure most everyone involved in Biblical NT writings were also true believers.

Paul wouldn't have given up the comfortable life of a Pharisee, and gone 180 degrees from oppressing Christians to taking on the dangerous life of an itinerant Christian teacher unless he genuinely believed he had some kind of a radical epiphany or vision. You're free to say he had a hallucination. But claiming he lied about it or had an epileptic seizure doesn't add up.

Right....I agree that Paul most definitely was a true believer, just as many Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc are.

People don't die or submit to execution to cover up lies they know are untrue.

Well, the writers of the Bible obviously weren't executed. I've heard that being dead makes writing difficult. The people involved in the spread of Christianity were alive in a time after executions were happening....if they actually happened.

These people genuinely believed they saw the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The people involved in the writings didn't see Jesus die or resurrected. They are operating on oral tradition.

The reason that we see quotes from Jesus that directly conflict with each other is because authors are making things up and one of them can't possibly be an actual quote from Jesus.

When Christianity was relatively new, lots of people had lots of thoughts on what it should mean to be a Christian and a good way to give writings legitimacy is to make the author Mark...or Matthew or Peter, that's part of why there are multiple books that were excluded from the canon despite being in Peter's name. It's why, between Mark (earliest) and John (latest) the blame for executing Jesus goes from being the Roman's fault to the Jews fault.

Yes, there are reasons.

1) The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings.

As I mentioned earlier, you are ignoring 10x reasons to believe it wasn't Mark in favor of 1 reason. That's because it's what you want to believe.

2) It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians like Mark and Luke who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true.

It's not irrational. It's about giving legitimacy.

If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.

They wouldn't because those closest to Jesus weren't reading or writing, especially in Greek.

You said it yourself: the early church bishops were interested in creating authoritative accounts to support their beliefs

3) The evidence clearly shows the early church fathers genuinely attempted (if not always successfully) to keep material written by frauds and fakes out of the canon. There were dozens of gospels written, but many of them were recognized to be frauds, and the church only selected four they were reasonably certain were written by eyewitnesses or those who knew the eyewitnesses.

This is what you want to believe, which is why you likely don't actually read Ehrman.

Any one single reason by itself isn't utterly convincing.

Unless it's Papias.....

But collectively they point to the best explanation is that a Christian named Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

Who is "they"?

The problem is you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your position.

I have. You just ignored it. The fact that you don't know the evidence is itself more evidence that you don't read Ehrman as you claim.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

To me, the most reasonable explanation for giving up a comfortable and prestigious life as a Pharisee for a life of beatings, lashings, shipwrecks, pirates, imprisonment is that he genuinely believed he had had some kind of a radical epiphany, vision, or rapture.

The explanations that he just had an epileptic seizure, or that he thought he would acquire power, wealth, and chicks really don't add up.

Good point!

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

What does that mean? Don't talk about the Bible?

Why would an Atheist want to read a book,that centers on the exact being,that atheist doesn't believe exist!

 

[ZenMode]

Why would an Atheist want to read a book,that centers on the exact being,that atheist doesn't believe exist!

To be informed on the topic of Christianity... of which I used to be a member.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is no such thing as 'standard Christian theology'. What are 'unsaved children'?

Unsaved children are children who are not saved, per standard Christian theology. All the standard Christians acknowledge this to be true. I make no claim as to what the normal Christians have to say on the matter, and the regular Christians are varied in their views. Atheists almost universally acknowledge that unsaved children are not, or were not, saved.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why would an Atheist want to read a book,that centers on the exact being,that atheist doesn't believe exist!

Countless atheists want to read The Lord of the Rings.

 

[Cypress]

It is from my POV.

Right and I'm sure most everyone involved in Biblical NT writings were also true believers.

Right....I agree that Paul most definitely was a true believer, just as many Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, etc are.

Well, the writers of the Bible obviously weren't executed. I've heard that being dead makes writing difficult. The people involved in the spread of Christianity were alive in a time after executions were happening....if they actually happened.


The people involved in the writings didn't see Jesus die or resurrected. They are operating on oral tradition.

The reason that we see quotes from Jesus that directly conflict with each other is because authors are making things up and one of them can't possibly be an actual quote from Jesus.

When Christianity was relatively new, lots of people had lots of thoughts on what it should mean to be a Christian and a good way to give writings legitimacy is to make the author Mark...or Matthew or Peter, that's part of why there are multiple books that were excluded from the canon despite being in Peter's name. It's why, between Mark (earliest) and John (latest) the blame for executing Jesus goes from being the Roman's fault to the Jews fault.

I don't believe in the Christianity that atheist podcasts taught you not believe in.
I do not believe the Book of Job is historical biography, I don't think Genesis 1 is a science report, and you don't have to believe the virgin birth or census in Luke are literally true.

As I mentioned earlier, you are ignoring 10x reasons to believe it wasn't Mark in favor of 1 reason. That's because it's what you want to believe.

You never gave any reasons. You just blurted out unrelated stuff like "it's written in Greek!"

It's not irrational. It's about giving legitimacy.

They wouldn't because those closest to Jesus weren't reading or writing, especially in Greek.

Hardly any of the apostles wrote genuine gospels. Something you didn't know until I told you. 24 hours ago you actually thought Luke was a companion of Jesus.

Luke was a gentile doctor and Mark was a secretary to Peter. Neither of them knew Jesus. Give your evidence that they weren't literate in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca and international trade language of the Eastern Mediterranean because Alexander the Great had Hellenized Palestine and the rest of the known world.
Paul was literate in Greek, and he didn't come from an elite nobel family. Many educated Jews were Hellenized and spoke Greek. The apostles of Jesus would have had absolutely no problem finding a Jew who was literate in Greek to transcribe their narrative.

This is what you want to believe, which is why you likely don't actually read Ehrman.

Here is a list of Ehrman's online video courses I watched, in concert with reading the accompanying course guide books.

The Historical Jesus - Bart Ehrman
How Jesus Became God - Bart Ehrman
New Testament Canon - Bart Ehrman
The Greatest Controversies of Early Christian History - Bart Ehrman
The Triumph of Christianity - Bart Ehrman
Jesus to Constantine - Bart Ehrman
After the New Testament: The Apostolic Fathers - Bart Ehrman
Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication - Bart Ehrman

Unless it's Papias.....

Who is "they"?

I have. You just ignored it. The fact that you don't know the evidence is itself more evidence that you don't read Ehrman as you claim.

You never provided a shred of evidence that the gospels were written by obscure random people who were so remotely removed from anyone associated with the apostles there was at least ten degrees of separation.

Speaking of not knowing the evidence: you didn't know Luke was not a companion of Jesus, and you mistakenly thought the gospels were written up to90 years after the crucifixion.

Ehrman has never explained why early Church fathers would name two canonical gospels after obscure low ranking Christians who didn't even know Jesus, if they were faking it. You said yourself the goal was to establish credibility and authority, in which case they would have named these canonical first century gospels after actual apostles like Andrew or James, etc.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

To be informed on the topic of Christianity... of which I used to be a member.

You never were! A true Christian has the Holy Spirit! No denomination needed

 

[IBDaMann]

God interacted with Adam and Eve.

I will certainly take you on your word that it happened, i.e. past tense.

That's certainly a first hand account!

Nope. An event is not a document.

They are. They are, whether you believe them to be real people or not.

I think you might have strayed from the logic a wee tad. I will take you on your word that Adam and Eve were real people, but that does not give you posession of any first-hand documentation.

No religion requires God??

You are flailing at the moment, but I know that you are aware of religions that have no gods.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I don't believe in the Christianity that atheist podcasts taught you not believe in.
I do not believe the Book of Job is historical biography, I don't think Genesis 1 is a science report, and you don't have to believe the virgin birth or census in Luke are literally true.

You never gave any reasons. You just blurted out unrelated stuff like "it's written in Greek!"

Hardly any of the apostles wrote genuine gospels. Something you didn't know until I told you. 24 hours ago you actually thought Luke was a companion of Jesus.

Luke was a gentile doctor and Mark was a secretary to Peter. Neither of them knew Jesus. Give your evidence that they weren't literate in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca and international trade language of the Eastern Mediterranean because Alexander the Great had Hellenized Palestine and the rest of the known world.
Paul was literate in Greek, and he didn't come from an elite nobel family. Many educated Jews were Hellenized and spoke Greek. The apostles of Jesus would have had absolutely no problem finding a Jew who was literate in Greek to transcribe their narrative.

Here is a list of Ehrman's online video courses I watched, in concert with reading the accompanying course guide books.

The Historical Jesus - Bart Ehrman
How Jesus Became God - Bart Ehrman
New Testament Canon - Bart Ehrman
The Greatest Controversies of Early Christian History - Bart Ehrman
The Triumph of Christianity - Bart Ehrman
Jesus to Constantine - Bart Ehrman
After the New Testament: The Apostolic Fathers - Bart Ehrman
Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication - Bart Ehrman


You never provided a shred of evidence that the gospels were written by obscure random people who were so remotely removed from anyone associated with the apostles there was at least ten degrees of separation.

Speaking of not knowing the evidence: you didn't know Luke was not a companion of Jesus, and you mistakenly thought the gospels were written up to90 years after the crucifixion.

Ehrman has never explained why early Church fathers would name two canonical gospels after obscure low ranking Christians who didn't even know Jesus, if they were faking it. You said yourself the goal was to establish credibility and authority, in which case they would have named these canonical first century gospels after actual apostles like Andrew or James, etc.

Christianity 101 !You need to have the Holy Spirit or you just belong to a Christian Social Club! "Many come in my name ,but they aren't mine"!

 

[IBDaMann]

You never were! A true Christian has the Holy Spirit!

This sounds like a kind of fallacy, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You never were! A true Christian has the Holy Spirit! No denomination needed

that's just you and me, shaman brother.

all the squares need a brand on their soul to keep up with the Joneses.

 

[ZenMode]

You never were! A true Christian has the Holy Spirit! No denomination needed

I was. I was a church/Sunday school attending, communion taking teenager.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I was. I was a church/Sunday school attending, communion taking teenager.

You belonged to a Christian Social Club if you didn't have the Holy Spirit!

 

[Into the Night]

This sounds like a kind of fallacy, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

It's a Begging the Question fallacy. He does not explain the Holy Spirit or how it relates to a so-called 'true Christian' (itself a True Scotsman fallacy).

There are actually two fallacies here.

A Begging the Question fallacy typically occurs when someone tries two conclusions in parallel and attempts to relate them.

IF he claims the 'Holy Spirit' is Jesus Christ and attempts to use that as a proof of any kind, than it becomes a simple circular argument fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

You belonged to a Christian Social Club if you didn't have the Holy Spirit!

"Have the holy spirit?" WTF does that mean?

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

"Have the holy spirit?" WTF does that mean?

Read Acts about the first Pentecost !