DAVID: If there was evidence for the idea that the New Testament texts were written by opposing, or anonymous, authors, I would gladly consider that evidence. But that seems to be one more thing that people frequently claim, but never present evidence for.

I'm not sure how you can say this. How can you be so oblivious to the fact that the Gospels were written anonymously? Show me one place in the gospels where the author says his name. Just one (The titles like "The Gospel according to John" were added later, around the 2nd century. Those titles were not in the originals). They do not mention their names even once and do not ever write in the 1st person. They write as if they were not involved in the story. They never say "I, me, us or we". Instead they use 3rd person narrative. If they were eye witnesses why wouldn't they say so? It sure would have given their words more authority. None of the authors even authenticate their accounts by appealing to personal knowledge. I find it very hard to believe that none of them would mention being eye witnesses if they were in fact witnesses. They were written anonymously. Tradition states that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Only 2 of the gospel authors were alleged disciples of Jesus: Matthew and John. But many scholars doubt this since those guys were, according to the New Testament themselves, were uneducated men. The disciples were uneducated peasants from Galilea. Peter & John, for example, were the sons of Zebedee and were said to be peasant fishermen who were "uneducated," that is, literally, unable to read and write (Acts 4:13). Now the gospels do not represent the most elegant literature from antiquity but their authors were at least relatively well educated; they write, for the most part, correct Greek. Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, the common language of the Jews in Palestine. Whether or not they could have known a second language is something that scholars have long debated, but it is very clear that Greek was NOT their native tongue. The authors of the Gospels on the other hand, are absolutely fluent in Greek. Did the apostles go back to school after Jesus died, overcome years of illiteracy by learning how to read and write at a relatively high level, become skilled in foreign composition, and then later pen the Gospels? Most scholars consider this highly unlikely.

So....they spread their stories by mouth and decades later people wrote them down. Luke himself describes this in his own Gospel. He explains how he, like the others, wrote down the words from people who told them these stories. So at the very best we have the words written down from someone who heard the story. Couple that with the fact that we have ZERO originals of the New Testament, and you have a very convoluted paper trail. All we have are copies of copies. The earliest of them date back to like 150 CE. But most of them date back to the 3rd and 4th century. All copies contain errors as well. Many of them. Some are so problematic they can only use small sections of a particular copy. This means that men orally passed down their stories which eventually they got written down by guys who didn't witness the events. Those originals were copied over and over. We are lucky enough to have many of the copies, but have none of the originals. This is very problematic though for people who want to take the words literally or as infallible truths. You can read about the dates of the copies we have here:

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.htm

Now, the originals were all written earlier (duh, obviously). But still, not one word was written until a good 30 years after Jesus' death. Mark is generally accepted as the earliest gospel being written between the mid 60's - early 70's. Scholars date the year of Jesus' execution as being 30 C.E. Matthew was written even later, around 80 or 85. John was written really late - in 90 - 95.

These are rough estimates, but scholars agree within a few years. This means that not one apostle, or eye witness wrote anything down, or HAD them written down until decades after Jesus'death. Weird and to skeptics, suspicious. That's a long interval of time: 35 - 65 years later. For the shortest interval that would be like having the 1st written record of Eisenhower's presidency come out now. For the longest interval it would be like having the 1st written account of the depression come out now! Another quick mention about how it is obvious that the authors of the Gospels were non eye witnesses and came from stories being spread is that they write about stories that were obviously in circulation for a long time. How could they write about stories that talk about Jesus when he was alone? For example: if Pilate and Jesus were alone at the trial in John 18:28 - 19:16, and Jesus was immediately executed, who told the Fourth Evangelist what Jesus actually said? This same principle applies to other accounts in the Gospels as well. Another thing that is troubling is if Matthew was an eye witness himself why does he take almost all of his stories, sometimes word for word, from someone else? There is tons of obvious evidence that shows stories being directly copied from other Gospels. The fact that entire stories are identical, WORD FOR WORD, proves this. Why would an eye witness do this? Makes no sense.

"I'm not sure how you can say this. How can you be so oblivious to the fact that the Gospels were written anonymously? Show me one place in the gospels where the author says his name."

Okay. Matthew writes his name in Matthew 9:3, among other places.

"They do not mention their names even once and do not ever write in the 1st person."

Matthew wrote about himself, and while it's true that he didn't write about himself in the first person, that was par for the course in those days. The historian Josephus, when he wrote about himself, used the third person, not the first. Julius Caesar usually did the same. You will find very few cases of ancient writers referring to themselves in the first person within major texts. It's not unheard of, but it was rarely done.

"(The titles like "The Gospel according to John" were added later, around the 2nd century. Those titles were not in the originals)."

I need to know whether you're arguing that they were originally title-less, or that they originally had alternate titles.

If you're arguing that they were originally title-less, then I have to ask if you can give me examples of other ancient writings of that sort of length which were also originally title-less, because I've never heard of it happening, and it would obviously be impractical for texts of such length to have no names at all. What did people call them when speaking of them? Did nobody talk about those stories about Jesus until the second century?

If you're arguing that they originally had alternate titles, then I need to know what you believe these alternate titles were, what your evidence is for these alternate titles, and how you think it happened that everyone everywhere agreed to change the titles, even though the texts were quite widespread by the second century. Or if you're saying that they had alternate titles but you have no idea what those titles were, then I want to know why you believe in them?

This all just seems like a convoluted and irrational way to try to explain something which has a much simpler explanation, that the titles we have were the proper titles.

"They do not mention their names even once and do not ever write in the 1st person. They write as if they were not involved in the story. They never say "I, me, us or we". Instead they use 3rd person narrative."

As did most ancient writers, including Josephus and Julius Caesar.

"I find it very hard to believe that none of them would mention being eye witnesses if they were in fact witnesses."

And, again, Josephus wrote about events that he witnessed, and wrote about his place in those events in the third-person, but didn't specifically mention being an eyewitness to them. Do you take that to mean that Josephus didn't really write the texts that were credited to him?

"Tradition states that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

As does the evidence. If a given writing is widely and unanimously credited to a given author, then this is evidence that the author wrote it, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Only in the case of John is there *any* evidence to the contrary, but it's minor in relation to the evidence for his authorship. For the synoptic writers, there is no evidence against their authorship.

"Only 2 of the gospel authors were alleged disciples of Jesus: Matthew and John. But many scholars doubt this since those guys were, according to the New Testament themselves, were uneducated men."

They were uneducated when the events happened, around 30 AD. But they wrote these texts decades later (between 60 and 80 AD). Gee, how is it possible that someone who was uneducated around 30 AD could be educated around 70 AD? Are you honestly saying that it's impossible that someone who is uneducated when they're younger could be educated when they're older? Have you never heard of people getting educations?

"Now the gospels do not represent the most elegant literature from antiquity but their authors were at least relatively well educated; they write, for the most part, correct Greek."

And again, someone who was uneducated around 30 AD could have become relatively well-educated by 60 or 80 AD.

"Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, the common language of the Jews in Palestine. Whether or not they could have known a second language is something that scholars have long debated, but it is very clear that Greek was NOT their native tongue."

I agree it was not their native tongue, but it was the most common language of the Roman Empire in their day. They almost certainly had a basic understanding of it, the same way a person living in France will usually have a basic understanding of French, even if it was not their native tongue. Greek wasn't the native tongue for the historian Josephus, either, but it was the language that he wrote all of his historical texts in. If he'd written them in his native tongue, very few people would have been able to read them.

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that as of 30 AD, the Gospel authors didn't know Greek at all, that they only spoke Aramaic. Obviously, though, they had a story to tell about Jesus, and wanted to tell it to as many people as possible, wouldn't you agree? Aramaic being a minority language in Rome, their ability to only speak Aramaic would severely limit their ability to tell people their story. So wouldn't they want to learn their land's primary language? If I lived in France, didn't speak French, but wanted to tell many, many French people about something extraordinary that I witnessed, you can bet I'd be learning French.

"The authors of the Gospels on the other hand, are absolutely fluent in Greek. Did the apostles go back to school after Jesus died, overcome years of illiteracy by learning how to read and write at a relatively high level, become skilled in foreign composition, and then later pen the Gospels? Most scholars consider this highly unlikely."

And those that do must admit that the authors could have simply dictated to someone who is more fluent in Greek than they are. Being the author of a text doesn't mean you wrote it in your own hand. Those who dictate a text are still the author of that text. Modern novelist Stephen J. Cannell dictates all of his novels to his secretary, who does the actual writing, since he is dyslexic. Yet it's still his name on the cover of his novels.

"So....they spread their stories by mouth and decades later people wrote them down."

That's your theory. Got any evidence to support it?

"Luke himself describes this in his own Gospel. He explains how he, like the others, wrote down the words from people who told them these stories."

Care to show me where? I'm guessing you're referring to Luke 1:2, where he talks about "they" telling the stories to "us". I think it's quite obvious that he's simply saying that those who witnessed the events are relating the stories to those who didn't, without making any declaration of which group the other Gospel writers belong to. But if you're referring to something else in Luke's Gospel, let me know.

"Couple that with the fact that we have ZERO originals of the New Testament, and you have a very convoluted paper trail. All we have are copies of copies."

Which is the case with all ancient texts.

"The earliest of them date back to like 150 CE. But most of them date back to the 3rd and 4th century. All copies contain errors as well. Many of them. Some are so problematic they can only use small sections of a particular copy. This means that men orally passed down their stories which eventually they got written down by guys who didn't witness the events. Those originals were copied over and over. We are lucky enough to have many of the copies, but have none of the originals. This is very problematic though for people who want to take the words literally or as infallible truths."

Obviously, we can't know with 100% certainty that the "copies of copies" that we have are relatively accurate reproductions of the original texts. But we can look at the manuscript support to help us determine how likely they are to be accurate representations. Like I said, we don't have the originals for *any* ancient text, unless it happened to have been written on stone or something like that. We don't have the originals for Homer, for Plato, for Josephus, for Tacitus, or for Aristotle. But we don't just say "well, we have no idea if these copies are accurate, so let's ignore them." If the manuscript support is strong, we can reasonably conclude whether the copies are likely to be accurate reproductions of the originals. And for the New Testament texts, the manuscript support is quite strong;

"You can read about the dates of the copies we have here:"

Relatively speaking, those copies were incredibly early.

For example, Homer's "Iliad" was written around 900 BC. The earliest fragments of copies date to around 400 BC (a 500-year difference). The earliest complete copy dates to around 1300 AD (a 2200-year difference). And scholars generally consider these copies we have to be accurate reproductions of what Homer wrote.

Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" was written around the same time as the New Testament. The earliest copies date to around 1000 AD.

Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" was written around 115 AD. The earliest copies date to around 850 AD.

Josephus wrote "The Jewish War" around 100 AD. The earliest copies date to around 1000 AD.

Aristotle wrote his texts around 350 AD. The earliest copies of his writings date to around 1100 AD.

Thucydides wrote his history of the Peloponnesian war around 400 BC. The earliest copies date to around 900 AD. Almost everything we know about that war comes from these copies from 1300 years after the writing.

For all of the above examples, historians consider the copies we have, despite being far, far removed from the originals, to be accurate reproductions of what those authors wrote. The manuscript support is quite strong for them, though not as strong as it is for the NT writings. So, no, having only a few decades or a century or two between the writing and the earliest copy is hardly problematic.

So why do we have so many differences between the copies? It's because we have so many copies, more than for any other ancient texts by far. You would expect if that many people were making copies, they would make minor spelling mistakes on occasion or maybe reword sentences, which is what the bulk of the differences are. Essentially, those who point out the vast number of differences are *punishing* the NT writings for having so many copies in existence. Obviously, if we only had a few, as we do for many ancient writings, there would be fewer differences, though these fewer copies ultimately equal weaker manuscript support, not stronger.

There are only a handful of passages that are really questionable regarding what the original author wrote, such as the ending of Mark. For the bulk of the New Testament, we can be relatively certain what the original author was trying to say to us.

"That's a long interval of time: 35 - 65 years later. For the shortest interval that would be like having the 1st written record of Eisenhower's presidency come out now."

The problem is that you're used to how quickly things get written down nowadays, which is understandable. Did you know that the earliest existing biographical writings about Alexander the Great, the sources of almost everything we know about him, were written 400 years after his death? How about the fact that the earliest existing account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes from 110 years after the event? 35-65 years is a strange interval nowadays. It wasn't back then. Back then, that was practically a "newsflash".

"if Pilate and Jesus were alone at the trial in John 18:28 - 19:16, and Jesus was immediately executed, who told the Fourth Evangelist what Jesus actually said?"

Where are you getting that they were alone?

"if Matthew was an eye witness himself why does he take almost all of his stories, sometimes word for word, from someone else? There is tons of obvious evidence that shows stories being directly copied from other Gospels. The fact that entire stories are identical, WORD FOR WORD, proves this. Why would an eye witness do this? Makes no sense."

Personally, I subscribe to the "Q" theory, which explains the similarities between Mark, Matthew and Luke nicely. Basically, the idea is that there is a single writing, predating all three Gospels, which was used a source for all three Gospels. It probably wasn't a "Gospel" per se, but a bunch of notes taken by a follower during Jesus' time. This writing, of course, does not exist any longer, but considering that the vast majority of ancient writings no longer exist, this isn't surprising. But it's a theory which nicely explains the evidence and contradicts no evidence, and thus has validity.

The question is - who took the notes? It had to have been a follower who was quite literate, someone used to taking notes about things. Someone like, say, a tax collector? A tax collector like Matthew had to be literate in order to do his job, would have to take notes about who paid what and when. Taking notes would be practically expected by someone like him. I believe that Matthew took notes about Jesus and used them in composing his own Gospel. Mark and Luke, of course, weren't eyewitnesses to the events. We do know that Mark got his story from Peter, but the evidence suggests that he wasn't literally taking dictation from him (if Peter was dictating, they would have called it the Gospel of Peter), but was writing down from memory after the fact. Of course, Mark would be much helped by comparing the details to another witness's memory, and thus was helped along by Matthew's notes (Matthew, of course, hadn't written his Gospel yet, though some scholars believe he may have written a Gospel in Aramaic prior to Mark's). Luke was also not an eyewitness and could have used the same notes for his Gospel. John, being an eyewitness, wouldn't need Matthew's notes, which is why the "Q" details don't show up in his Gospel. If he was writing from anyone's notes, it would probably be his own, if he had any.

I know that one problem with the Q theory is that Mark's Greek is pretty rusty, and Matthew clearly improves upon Mark's Greek, which, to many, suggests Matthew copying from Mark, not from himself. But keep in mind that Matthew's notes would have been in Aramaic, not Greek. Mark would have been translating them to Greek, so his "rusty Greek" doesn't reflect the idea that his writing was the original source altogether, just the original Greek source.

"Okay. Matthew writes his name in Matthew 9:3, among other places."

Matthew's names appears once in the 3rd person? Must mean he wrote it then.

"Matthew wrote about himself, and while it's true that he didn't write about himself in the first person, that was par for the course in those days. The historian Josephus, when he wrote about himself, used the third person, not the first. Julius Caesar usually did the same. You will find very few cases of ancient writers referring to themselves in the first person within major texts. It's not unheard of, but it was rarely done."

If Josephus and Caesar never signed their works or used any eye witness detail then you may have a point. But this 3rd person narrative coupled with the fact that none of the gospels were signed or contain any eye witness testimony or authoritative accounts from a witness, etc all add up.

"I need to know whether you're arguing that they [The Gospels] were originally title-less, or that they originally had alternate titles."

I believe they were originally title-less. The titles that we see in our bibles "The Gospels according to Luke, etc" were added in the 2nd century. I have never seen any proof or evidence of them having any other kind of title.

"If you're arguing that they originally had alternate titles, then I need to know what you believe these alternate titles were, what your evidence is for these alternate titles, and how you think it happened that everyone everywhere agreed to change the titles, even though the texts were quite widespread by the second century. Or if you're saying that they had alternate titles but you have no idea what those titles were, then I want to know why you believe in them? This all just seems like a convoluted and irrational way to try to explain something which has a much simpler explanation, that the titles we have were the proper titles."

Nope, they didn't have any kind of alternative titles that I have ever been aware of. What books have you read that were written by biblical scholars, David? The fact that you think I am making this up makes you look extremely ignorant. I am getting this information directly from men who have spent their lives studying these texts in their original languages. I am terribly sorry if the truth about your bible upsets you. The books I have read were written by scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman. I've read several of his books including: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, and, The New testament: A Historical Introduction. I HIGHLY recommend this last book for you. You truly need a good, solid, beginner's course in the history of your religion. Anyone doing even the easiest study of the history of the New Testament would be familiar with these issues. This is really basic stuff here, David. This is shocking to me because I have never debated with a christian before who was unaware of this stuff. Then again, the Christians I know have degrees in religious studies, theology or something similar. If you can prove that the originals had titles on them, by all means, do so. I'd love to see that! I have also read books on the history of the bible by Harry Gamble, Bruce Metzger and a few others I can't recall now. I can get you a more thorough reading list if you'd like. The book by Metzger is: The Canon of the New testament: It's Origin, Development and Significant. Excellent book. Some scholars call this book the authoritative voice on this subject.

"And, again, Josephus wrote about events that he witnessed, and wrote about his place in those events in the third-person, but didn't specifically mention being an eyewitness to them. Do you take that to mean that Josephus didn't really write the texts that were credited to him?"

I don't know. Did he sign his work or publish it directly himself? I bet he did....

"If a given writing is widely and unanimously credited to a given author, then this is evidence that the author wrote it, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Only in the case of John is there *any* evidence to the contrary, but it's minor in relation to the evidence for his authorship. For the synoptic writers, there is no evidence against their authorship."

What evidence? Tradition does not equal evidence. Evidence from WHO? What biblical scholars have you studied that say this? I will need a reference for this since you are the one stating the view that goes against what mainstream academia states. I have given you loads of evidence already against the authorship of the Gospels. You dismiss each by basically saying "So? That's no big deal". Now you say that there is NO evidence. Here is David's circular song and dance once again... *sigh* The fact remains that the authors of the gospels were anonymous.

"They were uneducated when the events happened, around 30 AD. But they wrote these texts decades later (between 60 and 80 AD). Gee, how is it possible that someone who was uneducated around 30 AD could be educated around 70 AD? Are you honestly saying that it's impossible that someone who is uneducated when they're younger could be educated when they're older? Have you never heard of people getting educations?"

What I stated was: "Did the apostles go back to school after Jesus died, overcome years of illiteracy by learning how to read and write at a relatively high level, become skilled in foreign composition, and then later pen the Gospels? Most scholars consider this highly unlikely." Again, the sources for this are Ehrman and Metzger. If you have some good sources of SCHOLARS who think otherwise, by all means, share them. I tend to have to agree with the scholars on this one though. People back in the 1st century didn't exactly drop everything to take night classes to learn a 2nd language. LOL!

" I agree it [Greek] was not their native tongue, but it was the most common language of the Roman Empire in their day. They almost certainly had a basic understanding of it, the same way a person living in France will usually have a basic understanding of French, even if it was not their native tongue."

Source? I have never heard this from any scholar on the subject. EVER. This is simply you assuming. We are not talking about a "basic understanding" either. Being able to ask where the bathroom is and writing a book are 2 different things.

"Greek wasn't the native tongue for the historian Josephus, either, but it was the language that he wrote all of his historical texts in. If he'd written them in his native tongue, very few people would have been able to read them."

Josephus the scholar? Yes, he obviously knew a 2nd language. What's that got to do with the peasant fishermen we are discussing here? I never once claimed that NOBODY in the 1st century learned a 2nd language or got an education. I said that according to scholars it was unlikely that the apostles did. I couldn't have been more clear about that.

"But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that as of 30 AD, the Gospel authors didn't know Greek at all, that they only spoke Aramaic. Obviously, though, they had a story to tell about Jesus, and wanted to tell it to as many people as possible, wouldn't you agree?"

Absolutely. And I believe that early christians in the 1st century WERE orally spreading these stories like crazy.

"Aramaic being a minority language in Rome, their ability to only speak Aramaic would severely limit their ability to tell people their story. So wouldn't they want to learn their land's primary language? If I lived in France, didn't speak French, but wanted to tell many, many French people about something extraordinary that I witnessed, you can bet I'd be learning French."

Interesting question. This is a topic that Ehrman spends an entire chapter on in his book The New testament: A Historical Introduction. The Gospels indicate that after Jesus' crucifixion there was a small group of about 20 men and women who were faithful to Jesus and Christianity. They started preaching and missionaries like Paul actively propagated the faith, converting Jews and Gentiles to Christianity. By the end of the 1st century the numbers had really exploded. I am sure in the preaching and traveling someone was spoken to who could speak Aramaic and Greek. That's not a very hard thing to imagine at all. You yourself said that these Aramaic men lived in a area that had a lot of Greek speaking people. Well...do the math. I'm sure there were other Aramaic speakers and there certainly were a lot of Greek speakers... Let's put it like this. Polish is a minority language hear in Chicago but it wouldn't take long at all to have a story spread from the polish speakers to the english speakers in this town. Bilingual people exist.

"ABIGAIL: So....they spread their stories by mouth and decades later people wrote them down."

DAVID: That's your theory. Got any evidence to support it?"

Sure do. The entire books I have mentioned from Ehrman and Metzger. This is common knowledge. COMMON. Again, what are the names of the scholarly books you have read that state something different? The proof is also in the dates of the documents. You yourself stated that the gospels were originally penned decades after Jesus' death. So are you telling me that you think the apostles were telling NOONE about this stuff until they just had to burst and tell someone? Then they, after decades of silence, ran out and found a bilingual Aramaic/Greek scribe to do their writing for them. Is this your theory? Interesting. :-)

"ABIGAIL: Luke himself describes this in his own Gospel. He explains how he, like the others, wrote down the words from people who told them these stories."

DAVID: Care to show me where? I'm guessing you're referring to Luke 1:2, where he talks about "they" telling the stories to "us". I think it's quite obvious that he's simply saying that those who witnessed the events are relating the stories to those who didn't, without making any declaration of which group the other Gospel writers belong to."

I am talking about Luke 1:1-4. Where he specifically states that he is undertaking the task of writing down the stories that have been handed down to them. Couldn't be anymore clear actually. Your interpretation is your opinion. I have never heard this passage be interpreted any other way. I am agreeing with the scholars (and everyone else) on this one. They take this passage as a hint to how the gospels came to be. And they feel lucky to have a bit of 1st hand knowledge from someplace on the subject!

"ABIGAIL: Couple that with the fact that we have ZERO originals of the New Testament, and you have a very convoluted paper trail. All we have are copies of copies."

DAVID: Which is the case with all ancient texts."

So? What's that got to do with the price of bread? We are talking about the bible, not any other text. If you want to debate the historic accuracy of some other ancient text with someone else, feel free. Basically your argument here is "it's okay because everyone does it". Okay. Well, that doesn't make it any less convoluted. Sorry.

"Obviously, we can't know with 100% certainty that the "copies of copies" that we have are relatively accurate reproductions of the original texts. But we can look at the manuscript support to help us determine how likely they are to be accurate representations. Like I said, we don't have the originals for *any* ancient text, unless it happened to have been written on stone or something like that. We don't have the originals for Homer, for Plato, for Josephus, for Tacitus, or for Aristotle. But we don't just say "well, we have no idea if these copies are accurate, so let's ignore them."

Who's ignoring them? I have stated several times that I have spent years studying them. There are entire schools of thought dedicated to them. There are rows of books written by people who study them. So who is ignoring them? I'm not even suggesting that we ignore them. BUT...what I won't do is hold them as law and think that they are erroneous and base my life on the teachings within. Or think that they must contain 100% truths because Christians say so.

"If the manuscript support is strong, we can reasonably conclude whether the copies are likely to be accurate reproductions of the originals. And for the New Testament texts, the manuscript support is quite strong;"

Really? So you haven't read much about the muddled textural issues then? Haven't done a lot of studying up on the manuscript errors throughout? I can recommend some more books in addition to the 2 I listed previously.

"Relatively speaking, those copies were incredibly early.

For example, Blah blah blah.... examples and more examples of copies that were made of earlier works... So, no, having only a few decades or a century or two between the writing and the earliest copy is hardly problematic."

Maybe for you. But it is very problematic for me and for other skeptics and atheists around the world. Especially when you are using those exact texts as the reasons why I should believe that some guy was magic and the God of all Gods. Again, the dates of other manuscripts is not the issue here. That simply proves my point that we have a lot of issues regarding the accuracy of historic texts. Your examples do nothing but support my views further. You have proven that finding originals is an impossible task and therefore we are reading copies of copies. This tells me that we should take the teachings with a grain of salt since men are capable of much error.

"So why do we have so many differences between the copies? It's because we have so many copies, more than for any other ancient texts by far. You would expect if that many people were making copies, they would make minor spelling mistakes on occasion or maybe reword sentences, which is what the bulk of the differences are."

I would expect it and rightfully so. Spelling errors, rewordings and mistranslations occur throughout.

"Essentially, those who point out the vast number of differences are *punishing* the NT writings for having so many copies in existence."

How so? That's ridiculous. So the fact that a text was erroneously copied and reproduced and because we do not have ANY of the originals we should NOT be skeptical of the words in them? We should just accept them because... what? Jesus was nice? We should accept the copies of copies that contain textual errors because it would hurt Jesus' feelings not to? Your point here is stupid. I am not going to accept erroneously copied texts just because I feel sorry for their over exposure. Lame argument David. Even for you.

"Obviously, if we only had a few, as we do for many ancient writings, there would be fewer differences, though these fewer copies ultimately equal weaker manuscript support, not stronger."

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. You can't even begin to try and make such a broad unsubstantiated statement. 1st you'd have to compare the 2 texts, compare the methods of copying, compare the REASONS for copying, compare the known errors, compare the REASONS for the known errors, etc etc. Your weak, general example fails here. Miserably.

"There are only a handful of passages that are really questionable regarding what the original author wrote, such as the ending of Mark. For the bulk of the New Testament, we can be relatively certain what the original author was trying to say to us."

Source? According to what biblical scholar? Again, I point you in the direction of the 2 biblical scholars I have mentioned to see that you are indeed VERY WRONG about this. Everything I have read on the subject from a scholar has stated quite the opposite.

"The problem is that you're used to how quickly things get written down nowadays, which is understandable. Did you know that the earliest existing biographical writings about Alexander the Great, the sources of almost everything we know about him, were written 400 years after his death? How about the fact that the earliest existing account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes from 110 years after the event? 35-65 years is a strange interval nowadays. It wasn't back then. Back then, that was practically a "newsflash".

The example was to show you the length of time between an event and the event being written about so you can see how ridiculously long of an interval it was. Besides, your comparison, once again, fails miserably. You are comparing the existing copies of Alexander's biographies to the originals of Jesus'. Also, if you REALLY want to compare these two men... look at how much information we have about Caesar. We have exact dates and TONS of very tedious, specific information. We have nothing like that for Jesus. And according to you, we got information on Jesus so quickly! We had to wait centuries before getting info on Caesar and got info on Jesus within 60+ years. So why don't we have anything really specific for Jesus? Why do we have so much on Caesar? Still want to compare the 2?

"ABIGAIL: if Pilate and Jesus were alone at the trial in John 18:28 - 19:16, and Jesus was immediately executed, who told the Fourth Evangelist what Jesus actually said?"

DAVID:   Where are you getting that they were alone?

At this point Jesus had been taken prisoner. He was in custody. His followers weren't with him. So if anyone was in the room it was a guard or something else like that. But you have already stated that you think the gospels were originally written by apostles. So who wrote this part? The guard? Some clerk passing through. Who was there? And how did an disciple get to Jesus when he was in custody? Think about it.

"Matthew's names appears once in the 3rd person? Must mean he wrote it then."

All you asked was for me to give examples of where an author stated his name. I did. Why move the goalposts?

"If Josephus and Caesar never signed their works or used any eye witness detail then you may have a point."

Good, then I have a point. We have no signed copies of their works, and they simply state what happened without saying they used eyewitness details. Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use when deciding whether a historical text uses eyewitness details or not? Do you only consider them "eyewitness" if they're told in first-person? If not, what is your criteria?

"But this 3rd person narrative coupled with the fact that none of the gospels were signed or contain any eye witness testimony or authoritative accounts from a witness, etc all add up."

Just as it does for Josephus and Caesar, right? I just want to make sure you're consistent.

"I believe they were originally title-less."

You're free to subscribe to whatever theory you like, but if you're hoping to convince anyone, then you need to either provide evidence or explain why this is a more likely theory than the theory that the given names were the original titles.

And I do hope you realize the impracticality of having a popular text that is being spread around the middle east being title-less. You believe that the synoptics were written around 70 AD, give or take, right? How did the people who were copying them and spreading them around differentiate between the various Gospels if they had no titles? They had to have called them something, wouldn't they? What do you think they called them? And how, once the titles were added in the second century, did the people who came up with the title get everyone to agree upon it? This is just a very convoluted and irrational theory. I would really need a lot of evidence to believe in a theory that is this irrational. Doesn't the titles being assigned when they were written make a lot more sense?

"I am getting this information directly from men who have spent their lives studying these texts in their original languages"

And did they provide evidence for the texts originally being title-less? Or are they simply assuming it in order to justify their theories?

"If you can prove that the originals had titles on them, by all means, do so."

Prove it, no. But I can certainly show you what most people would see as convincing evidence - the fact that they all ended up having the *exact same title*. The odds of this happening are astronomical. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the texts were originally title-less. This would mean that people who were spreading it around either weren't calling it *anything* or were just making up their own individual names for it. Obviously, calling it nothing makes no sense. If it was just one book, I could perhaps, hypothetically, seeing no one bothering to come up with a name. But for all of the Gospels? If they were making up their own names for the texts, why is there no record of these alternate names?

"I don't know. Did he sign his work or publish it directly himself? I bet he did...."

We have no evidence of him signing his work or publishing it directly himself. These late copies we have hardly contain such information, so what makes you think he did? And what makes you think the Gospel authors didn't? I basically want to know what criteria you're using for deciding these things, because it seems to be based on personal whim. For Josephus, you bet he did. For the Gospels, you bet they didn't. Why?

"What evidence? Tradition does not equal evidence. Evidence from WHO?"

It's the same evidence we have for Josephus having written his histories, that his name is the only one associated with them. The Gospel authors not being who "tradition" claims they were is as unlikely as Josephus not being the one who actually wrote his histories. No, I can't *prove* that they wrote their Gospels, any more than I can prove that Josephus wrote his histories. But until there is evidence to the contrary, I'll believe that the credited authors are probably the actual authors.

And besides, I gave you a list earlier of early figures who confirm the credited authorships of the Gospels. So far, 100% of the evidence favors the credited authors, and none stands against it.

"I have given you loads of evidence already against the authorship of the Gospels."

When?

"The fact remains that the authors of the gospels were anonymous."

You mean your *opinion* remains that the authors of the gospels were anonymous. Personally, I go where the evidence points.

"What I stated was: "Did the apostles go back to school after Jesus died, overcome years of illiteracy by learning how to read and write at a relatively high level, become skilled in foreign composition, and then later pen the Gospels? Most scholars consider this highly unlikely." Again, the sources for this are Ehrman and Metzger."

Out of curiosity, did Ehrman and Metzger agree that the apostles could have dictated the Gospels to those more fluent in writing Greek, or did they ignore this pretty obvious possibility? If they considered it, what was their opinion of it?

"DAVID: I agree it was not their native tongue, but it was the most common language of the Roman Empire in their day. They almost certainly had a basic understanding of it, the same way a person living in France will usually have a basic understanding of French, even if it was not their native tongue.

ABIGAIL: Source? I have never heard this from any scholar on the subject. EVER."

Seriously? They really ignored something so obvious? Actually, when Pilate addressed the Jewish people, he was almost certainly doing so in Greek. He probably wouldn't have spoken Aramaic, since he wasn't Jewish himself. If they didn't know Greek, how would they have understood him?

But here you go: http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm#Chapter_Two

It's kind of long, but if you scroll down to the heading "Jesus and the Disciples spoke Greek", that's where the information is.

"Josephus the scholar? Yes, he obviously knew a 2nd language."

What do you think the chances were that Josephus could write fluently in Greek *forty years* before he composed his histories? Forty years earlier, he was probably relatively uneducated and couldn't write Greek. But when he wrote his histories, he was obviously able to do so (unless he dictated, of course - we don't know). Why do you think his learning to write in Greek over those forty years is likely, but unlikely for other people who also apparently wrote in Greek?

"What's that got to do with the peasant fishermen we are discussing here?"

They weren't peasant fishermen around 70 AD. They were peasant fishermen around 30 AD. Do you really not believe that someone's status in life can change over 40 years?

"I never once claimed that NOBODY in the 1st century learned a 2nd language or got an education. I said that according to scholars it was unlikely that the apostles did. I couldn't have been more clear about that."

Right. But you agree that people like Josephus could have been bilingual when it suits you, and believe that Jesus' apostles *couldn't* have been bilingual when it suits you.

There's very good evidence that the apostles spoke Greek around 30 AD and no reason to suppose that they couldn't have written, or at least dictated, Greek around 70 AD.

"Absolutely. And I believe that early christians in the 1st century WERE orally spreading these stories like crazy."

Sure, but the people who witnessed the events would rather have told people what they saw instead of leaving it for others to spread. If I saw something amazing, something that people may not believe, I wouldn't just tell a few other people and let them be the ones to relate what I saw like it was an urban legend. I'd want to tell it myself. Wouldn't you?

"Polish is a minority language here in Chicago but it wouldn't take long at all to have a story spread from the polish speakers to the english speakers in this town. Bilingual people exist."

Sure, but if a Polish person saw something that they wanted to tell everyone in Chicago about, they wouldn't just tell those who were bilingual and then just sit back and let the story spread. They'd want to tell people for themselves what they saw. They'd learn English well enough to tell English-speaking people what they saw (if they didn't already know it), and when they got older and knew that they wouldn't be around to keep telling people, they'd either learn to write English, or dictate the story to someone who could.

"So are you telling me that you think the apostles were telling NOONE about this stuff until they just had to burst and tell someone? Then they, after decades of silence, ran out and found a bilingual Aramaic/Greek scribe to do their writing for them. Is this your theory? Interesting. :-)"

You do realize that there are ways of telling people things other than writing them down, right? I'm just trying to ponder out how you think the fact that they waited a while before writing them down equals their not having told anyone what they saw. How did that idea even pop into your mind?

"I am talking about Luke 1:1-4. Where he specifically states that he is undertaking the task of writing down the stories that have been handed down to them. Couldn't be anymore clear actually."

I agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out why you think that Luke was claiming that the other Gospel writers were also simply writing down the stories that had been handed down to them. He never mentions the other Gospel writers in Luke 1:4, just those who witnessed and those who heard. You seem to be adding them in where you think they belong.

Though come to think of it, Luke's was probably the second Gospel written, so the only other "Gospel writer" at the time was Mark, who wasn't an eyewitness but was telling Peter's story. So even if he *was* saying that the Gospel writers got their stories from eyewitnesses, then he would only have been talking about himself and Mark. Matthew and John had yet to write theirs, since they were apparently still spreading them orally at that point.

"So? What's that got to do with the price of bread? We are talking about the bible, not any other text. If you want to debate the historic accuracy of some other ancient text with someone else, feel free. Basically your argument here is "it's okay because everyone does it". Okay. Well, that doesn't make it any less convoluted. Sorry. "

Actually, my point is "it's okay because everyone else does and scholars consider their texts to be reliable representations of the what the original authors said, so it's nonsensical to say that the NT texts can't be reliable representations of what the original authors said when they're manuscript support is even stronger than it is for the other texts." I'm *not* debating the historical accuracy of those other ancient texts. No one is.

I do agree that for a handful of NT passages, such as the ending of Mark, we can't be certain what the original author wrote. I have no problem with people questioning those specific passages. I question them myself, and say so on my website. But for the other 99.9% of the NT, there is no rational basis for questioning whether the copies we have are what the authors originally wrote. I will agree with Ehrman that the small differences are damning to anyone who believes that God has somehow guided the hands of those who wrote and copied the texts over the years, guaranteeing that no errors were made ever. But since I don't believe that myself, and have never met anyone who did, that's not a problem for those of us who simply go where the evidence points instead of demanding perfection from copyists.

"Who's ignoring them? I have stated several times that I have spent years studying them. There are entire schools of thought dedicated to them. There are rows of books written by people who study them. So who is ignoring them? I'm not even suggesting that we ignore them. BUT...what I won't do is hold them as law and think that they are erroneous and base my life on the teachings within. Or think that they must contain 100% truths because Christians say so. "

And I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking you to realize that, as with those other texts, we can be reasonably certain that the "copies of copies" that we have today are relatively accurate translations of what the originals authors wrote. They are. If you want to believe that what the original authors wrote was total nonsense, and not base your life upon what they wrote, that's absolutely within your rights and I won't ask you to do otherwise. But to say that because they're "copies of copies", we should consider them unreliable reproductions of what the original authors wrote, is ridiculous. Unless your sources are willing to do the same for every ancient text ever written (and I'm guessing they're not), then they're being completely inconsistent in doing so for the NT. They're holding the Bible to a different standard.

"Maybe for you. But it is very problematic for me and for other skeptics and atheists around the world"

Sure, but only when it comes to the NT, I'm assuming. For all of these other texts, I'm guessing that these same skeptics and atheists have no problem agreeing that the copies of copies that we have are relatively accurate reproductions of what the original authors wrote. Because they almost certainly are, as are the NT texts.

"Especially when you are using those exact texts as the reasons why I should believe that some guy was magic and the God of all Gods"

Again, I'm not asking you to do so, just to accept the fact that the copies we have are, per the evidence, reliable representations of what the original authors wrote. This is a completely separate issue from whether what they wrote was true or not.

"So the fact that a text was erroneously copied and reproduced and because we do not have ANY of the originals we should NOT be skeptical of the words in them? We should just accept them because... what?"

Because the manuscript support is strong enough to show that they are relatively accurate representations of what the original authors wrote. If you have problem with what the original authors wrote, that's your right. But the fact that we only have copies doesn't mean that what we have is wildly different than what the authors wrote.

"DAVID: So you think that having only a few copies of an ancient text is no worse or different than having thousands? Scholars will tell you that having more copies amounts to greater manuscript support than having fewer."

"ABIGAIL: You can't even begin to try and make such a broad unsubstantiated statement. 1st you'd have to compare the 2 texts, compare the methods of copying, compare the REASONS for copying, compare the known errors, compare the REASONS for the known errors, etc etc. Your weak, general example fails here. Miserably."

All of which is considered when determining the strength of the manuscript support. But that doesn't change the fact that having *more* copies amounts to greater manuscript support than having *fewer*.

"DAVID: There are only a handful of passages that are really questionable regarding what the original author wrote, such as the ending of Mark. For the bulk of the New Testament, we can be relatively certain what the original author was trying to say to us.

ABIGAIL: Source?"

Many. For example, Dr. Benjamin Warfield, in "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament", says "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce says "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament than have many theologians."

"According to what biblical scholar? Again, I point you in the direction of the 2 biblical scholars I have mentioned to see that you are indeed VERY WRONG about this. Everything I have read on the subject from a scholar has stated quite the opposite."

Which is why you need to read the works of scholars on both sides, not just on one side. This is why I, personally, prefer to discuss stuff with people rather than just read what one scholar (on whichever side) has to say. Monologue can be dishonest and biased, but dialogue keeps both sides honest and evens out the biases. A writer can write the most ludicrous thing in the world, and if it's in a book he wrote, no one can challenge him on it within that particular forum. But if he says it in debate, you can bet that his opponent will challenge what he said.

"The example was to show you the length of time between an event and the event being written about so you can see how ridiculously long of an interval it was. Besides, your comparison, once again, fails miserably. You are comparing the existing copies of Alexander's biographies to the originals of Jesus'."

No, 400 years later was when those biographies were *written*, not when the earliest copies were from. Those biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch, who lived 4 centuries after Alexander. The earliest existing copies were from later than that.

"We have exact dates and TONS of very tedious, specific information. We have nothing like that for Jesus. And according to you, we got information on Jesus so quickly! We had to wait centuries before getting info on Caesar and got info on Jesus within 60+ years. So why don't we have anything really specific for Jesus? Why do we have so much on Caesar? Still want to compare the 2?"

Sure. We have lots of specific information on Jesus. We know the names of His disciples, the name of His mother and step-father, the names of his friends, what his step-father did for a living, the names of the authorities responsible for His execution, etc. True, that we have lots of specific information for Caesar, also. The historicity of both people isn't really in doubt once all of the evidence is weighed.

"At this point Jesus had been taken prisoner. He was in custody. His followers weren't with him. So if anyone was in the room it was a guard or something else like that. But you have already stated that you think the gospels were originally written by apostles. So who wrote this part? The guard? Some clerk passing through. Who was there? And how did an disciple get to Jesus when he was in custody? Think about it."

What makes you think that Pilate never related to *anybody* what happened when he questioned Jesus? This trial was quite controversial, and people on both sides would have wanted to know what happened. I doubt Pilate told the apostles directly, but he certainly told *someone*, wouldn't you agree? Word about what happened there could easily have gotten around to the apostles.

"All you asked was for me to give examples of where an author stated his name. I did. Why move the goalposts?"

What goal posts? Your example of Matthew’s name appearing 2 times in 3rd person is not evidence of what I told you wasn't there. I asked for proof of authorship. Any place where the author states his name or says something about his identity. What you showed me is not proof. Not even close. I am also aware that the names John appears in the Gospel of John. That doesn't mean I think he authored that original text. That means that there are stories about John in there. If we went by your theory and attribute authorship to the names of the people in the stories we could also say that Jesus himself wrote the Gospels. His name is there in the 3rd person too.

"ABIGAIL: If Josephus and Caesar never signed their works or used any eye witness detail then you may have a point."

DAVID: Good, then I have a point. We have no signed copies of their works, and they simply state what happened without saying they used eyewitness details. Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use when deciding whether a historical text uses eyewitness details or not? Do you only consider them "eyewitness" if they're told in first-person? If not, what is your criteria?"

Can I see the evidence that both of those men never either signed their names or claimed authorship over their works? Your lip service ain't cutting it. It is also worth noting that in both cases the writings of those men contain autobiographical accounts. :-)

"ABIGAIL: But this 3rd person narrative coupled with the fact that none of the gospels were signed or contain any eye witness testimony or authoritative accounts from a witness, etc all add up."

DAVID: Just as it does for Josephus and Caesar, right? I just want to make sure you're consistent."

None of these examples that you use for arguing against the facts of the NT work. None of them. 1st of all, my belief that Jesus never existed does not rest solely upon 1 factor. It rests upon the culmination of the evidence. If the gospels were just anonymous and that was all the evidence I had against the existence of Jesus then you could use examples like this. But that factor is simply 1 piece if the puzzle. If you want to continue to try and refute my claims by using examples of other ancient texts, authors, etc. then you will need to find examples that share all the same criticisms as the ones we have for the gospels and the NT in general. 95% of your "proof" against the things I have stated about the gospels has been you simply making conclusions based on 1 aspect of another ancient example. You cannot take that conclusion and transfer it to the bible. That is intellectually dishonest. To compare any ancient author or text you would need to compare them based on each of the criticisms I have given for the NT. The culmination of these criticisms makes the whole of the argument against the historical Jesus. I would not just dismiss ANY ancient text based on 1 of the factors I list against the NT. So I also will not do that for any single example you give me. In other words, I am being consistent. It is you who isn't being consistent. For each time you try and use this type of flawed reasoning as "proof" I will simply respond with "Not Applicable for the reasons I explain above”. Until you can either deal directly with the criticisms I list by dealing with the texts we are discussing (the NT) or give me an example of an ancient text or author that I do not doubt, that has the same list of criticisms I give for the NT, you have no case.

"ABIGAIL: I believe they were originally title-less."

DAVID: You're free to subscribe to whatever theory you like, but if you're hoping to convince anyone, then you need to either provide evidence or explain why this is a more likely theory than the theory that the given names were the original titles.

It's not my theory. It is the theory of the scholars I have mentioned. These guys have seen the earliest copies and have directly compared them to later copies. They are both fluent in dead languages as well to be able to critically compare ancient texts. I have never, ever, in my entire life seen anything from a scholar that states that the Gospels came with titles. Again, the burden of proof is on you here since you are stating things that go against the scholars.

When you tell stories about your past do you give them working titles? When you repeat stories that you heard from other people do you have a specific title for that story? When you tell someone about your religion do you say that you are going to tell them about Jesus or say that you are going to tell then about Christianity? Or do you have a specific title for your spiel? Why is it so hard to believe that people simply told others that they wanted to tell them about their savior, god, or religion? What you say here makes no sense.

"How did the people who were copying them and spreading them around differentiate between the various Gospels if they had no titles? They had to have called them something, wouldn't they? What do you think they called them? And how, once the titles were added in the second century, did the people who came up with the title get everyone to agree upon it? This is just a very convoluted and irrational theory. I would really need a lot of evidence to believe in a theory that is this irrational. Doesn't the titles being assigned when they were written make a lot more sense?"

I am not at liberty to say what they called them. I have never seen any evidence to show what they called them. Unlike you I don't fill in the blanks with my unfounded ideas and assumptions. This also shows how little you have read or studied about the history of your religion and bible. Reading any of the books I mentioned already would give you a good handle of what the scholars say about this. Considering that much of the Gospels are comprised of copies that date all over the 1st - 4th centuries should tell you that there wasn't a canonical book like the one we have now. The NT was put together MUCH later. Until then the stories were passed around orally and some were written down, passed around and copied. Experts put together what we now call the Gospel of Luke, etc. They don't have any original book that is The Gospel of Luke as you know it. The gospels were put together based on experts who did textual research. By studying all the fragmented copies they were able to put together what they believe to be the book of Luke, etc. Again, if you have any evidence that the pieces of texts that the experts have which date all over the place each had a working title, now would be the time to present it.

"And did they provide evidence for the texts originally being title-less? Or are they simply assuming it in order to justify their theories?"

No. Scholars typically do not assume things without proof. This would be intellectually dishonest. They may BELIEVE something in their personal lives but they wouldn't put that in their history books. All they can do is show the evidence that they do have and state what this means based on their expertise. This is what they do in this case. Again, if you have proof that states that these texts had working titles, please show me. I'd love to see some updated information.

"ABIGAIL: If you can prove that the originals had titles on them, by all means, do so."

DAVID: Prove it, no. But I can certainly show you what most people would see as convincing evidence - the fact that they all ended up having the *exact same title*. The odds of this happening are astronomical. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the texts were originally title-less. This would mean that people who were spreading it around either weren't calling it *anything* or were just making up their own individual names for it. Obviously, calling it nothing makes no sense. If it was just one book, I could perhaps, hypothetically, seeing no one bothering to come up with a name. But for all of the Gospels? If they were making up their own names for the texts, why is there no record of these alternate names?

Then the case is closed. You cannot prove that they had titles and the experts, scholars, people who studied these ancient texts state that they were written anonymously with no titles. Scholars state that the titles we see in our bibles were added in the 2nd century. Case closed. Whether or not you find this odd is irrelevant. This is just a case of you not being able to accept the truth along with your beliefs.

"We have no evidence of  [Josephus] signing his work or publishing it directly himself. These late copies we have hardly contain such information, so what makes you think he did? And what makes you think the Gospel authors didn't? I basically want to know what criteria you're using for deciding these things, because it seems to be based on personal whim. For Josephus, you bet he did. For the Gospels, you bet they didn't. Why?"

I was asking if Josephus did or didn't. Note I never stated that he did. I asked you if he did. That's why I said "I don't know". What I believe about the Gospels has nothing to do with my whim. It has everything to do with the copies of the gospels that we have, and what they don't contain - a signature, title or claim of authorship. I'm just going by the gospels themselves here. I can't go by anything else.

"It's the same evidence we have for Josephus having written his histories, that his name is the only one associated with them. The Gospel authors not being who "tradition" claims they were is as unlikely as Josephus not being the one who actually wrote his histories. No, I can't *prove* that they wrote their Gospels, any more than I can prove that Josephus wrote his histories. But until there is evidence to the contrary, I'll believe that the credited authors are probably the actual authors."

Can't compare Josephus to people we don't know anything about. You are comparing a real person, Josephus, who included much autobiographical information in his writings, who was written about during his lifetime, etc, etc to guys that we don't know anything about. Luke, Mark? Who were they? Their names don't even appear in the 3rd person in their Gospels! We don't have any info about these guys. Can't compare. Plus, were Josephus' writings done during his lifetime? We know that Josephus existed, right? We have descriptions of him and writings from him and writings about him that date from the time he lived, right? We have portraits of him, right? So...what was your point again?

"And besides, I gave you a list earlier of early figures who confirm the credited authorships of the Gospels. So far, 100% of the evidence favors the credited authors, and none stands against it."

And I have given you a list of MODERN scholars who disagree. Your point? 100% of the evidence doesn't even slightly favor your side. As I have proven many times.

"ABIGAIL: I have given you loads of evidence already against the authorship of the Gospels."

DAVID:When?"

In this email, in my last email and in the email prior to that. Confused much?

"ABIGAIL: The fact remains that the authors of the gospels were anonymous."

DAVID: You mean your *opinion* remains that the authors of the gospels were anonymous. Personally, I go where the evidence points."

You haven't been able to show me 1 piece of evidence that proves the authorship the NT. I have given you tons of evidence against it. Your "proof" comes from you comparing another ancient author or text to ONE SINGLE point I have given against the NT. LOL! And these aren't MY opinions. These are the expert testimonies of biblical scholars.

"Out of curiosity, did Ehrman and Metzger agree that the apostles could have dictated the Gospels to those more fluent in writing Greek, or did they ignore this pretty obvious possibility? If they considered it, what was their opinion of it?"

If there is no evidence to suggest that this is what happened then the scholars SHOULD ignore it. If they were to make up theories based on their own opinions then they would be terribly subjective and not a credible source. The job of the historian, scientist, etc is NOT to give you their opinions on stuff. Or to make up unfounded theories that has no support from the evidence. It is to lay out all the evidence, or look at the lack thereof, and give there expert testimony on what it means. Ehrman even talks about this in his books. He states that it isn't his job to tell anyone what to believe or to give his personal opinion. It is simply his job to provide the evidence and show what that all points to from a expert, scholarly standpoint. If a book makes suggestions that have no evidence to support it you should toss that book in the trash. Unless of course you are looking for philosophical, opinions or unfounded theories, which is sometimes helpful when discussing ideas and things that aren’t based on hard evidence.

"DAVID: I agree it was not their native tongue, but it was the most common language of the Roman Empire in their day. They almost certainly had a basic understanding of it, the same way a person living in France will usually have a basic understanding of French, even if it was not their native tongue.

ABIGAIL: Source? I have never heard this from any scholar on the subject. EVER."

Seriously? They really ignored something so obvious? Actually, when Pilate addressed the Jewish people, he was almost certainly doing so in Greek. He probably wouldn't have spoken Aramaic, since he wasn't Jewish himself. If they didn't know Greek, how would they have understood him?

You stated that the disciples must have known Greek. I asked for proof of this. Your saying that they must have because you think so, is not proof. And again, if the experts I have read were to make assumptions without having a shred of evidence to back it up, I would be terribly disappointed. No one doubts that Greek was spoken by some people in this area at this time. Duh.

But here you go: http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm#Chapter_Two

It's kind of long, but if you scroll down to the heading "Jesus and the Disciples spoke Greek", that's where the information is.

I will have to read this later when I get time. But if this is a article that states that Greek was a language being spoken in the areas where Jesus and his buddies were hanging out, then I have to remind you that I am aware of this. The question isn't whether or not SOMEBODY was able to speak Greek. The question is whether or not the men described in the gospels as uneducated, peasants where able to read and write well in a 2nd language. So I hope this article shows some kind of proof for that. Otherwise this is more or the same.... assumptions being made based on the proof of other scenarios.

"What do you think the chances were that Josephus could write fluently in Greek *forty years* before he composed his histories? Forty years earlier, he was probably relatively uneducated and couldn't write Greek. But when he wrote his histories, he was obviously able to do so (unless he dictated, of course - we don't know). Why do you think his learning to write in Greek over those forty years is likely, but unlikely for other people who also apparently wrote in Greek?"

Since I have zero evidence that suggests that these anonymous, uneducated, illiterate peasants went back to school learn how to read and write and then to learn a 2nd language, I cannot make such a claim. Neither can you or anyone else. This is nothing but assumption. Josephus was an educated scholar. So it is not unlikely at all that he would know a 2nd language. Your proof is all based on assumptions. Sad, really.

"ABIGAIL: What's that got to do with the peasant fishermen we are discussing here?"

DAVID: They weren't peasant fishermen around 70 AD. They were peasant fishermen around 30 AD. Do you really not believe that someone's status in life can change over 40 years?"

What were they around 70 AD? I obviously missed this part in the bible. I know people's lives can change. But I am not going to assume somebody's life changes simply because they can.

"But you agree that people like Josephus could have been bilingual when it suits you, and believe that Jesus' apostles *couldn't* have been bilingual when it suits you."

LOL! Josephus WAS bilingual! We have proof of this. We have zero proof to suggest that Matthew, Mark, etc were bilingual. All I can do is go by the evidence.

"Sure, but the people who witnessed the events would rather have told people what they saw instead of leaving it for others to spread. If I saw something amazing, something that people may not believe, I wouldn't just tell a few other people and let them be the ones to relate what I saw like it was an urban legend. I'd want to tell it myself. Wouldn't you?"

LOL! WHAT??? I have no idea what the hell you are taking about. Stay on topic, please.

"Sure, but if a Polish person saw something that they wanted to tell everyone in Chicago about, they wouldn't just tell those who were bilingual and then just sit back and let the story spread. They'd want to tell people for themselves what they saw. They'd learn English well enough to tell English-speaking people what they saw (if they didn't already know it), and when they got older and knew that they wouldn't be around to keep telling people, they'd either learn to write English, or dictate the story to someone who could."

Your opinion, based on nothing. This was my fault though. I shouldn't have armed you with yet another made up scenario to go bonkers with.

"ABIGAIL: So are you telling me that you think the apostles were telling NO ONE about this stuff until they just had to burst and tell someone? Then they, after decades of silence, ran out and found a bilingual Aramaic/Greek scribe to do their writing for them. Is this your theory? Interesting. :-)"

DAVID:   You do realize that there are ways of telling people things other than writing them down, right?"

Ummm, yes. That's why I said that the stories were being spread orally, like wildfire. I've stated this more than once.

" I'm just trying to ponder out how you think the fact that they waited a while before writing them down equals their not having told anyone what they saw."

Ummm, you get this from...where? When I said that they were spreading their stories orally for decades? Confused again.

"How did that idea even pop into your mind?"

.... It didn't. This is just another place where you got incredibly confused.

" I agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out why you think that Luke was claiming that the other Gospel writers were also simply writing down the stories that had been handed down to them. He never mentions the other Gospel writers in Luke 1:4, just those who witnessed and those who heard. You seem to be adding them in where you think they belong."

Luke 1:4 - 1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

"Actually, my point is "it's okay because everyone else does and scholars consider their texts to be reliable representations of the what the original authors said, so it's nonsensical to say that the NT texts can't be reliable representations of what the original authors said when they're manuscript support is even stronger than it is for the other texts." I'm *not* debating the historical accuracy of those other ancient texts. No one is."

Not Applicable. For the reasons I stated at the beginning of this email.

"And I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking you to realize that, as with those other texts, we can be reasonably certain that the "copies of copies" that we have today are relatively accurate translations of what the originals authors wrote. They are."

That’s your opinion. I personally go with the scholars on this one. Don’t worry, the sources for this will be on my list that I send you later tonight. And the errors in the copies along with the pagan parallels, and the lack of proof for Jesus and the scientifically impossible claims all point to a done deal for me and any other atheist or skeptic.

" If you want to believe that what the original authors wrote was total nonsense, and not base your life upon what they wrote, that's absolutely within your rights and I won't ask you to do otherwise. But to say that because they're "copies of copies", we should consider them unreliable reproductions of what the original authors wrote, is ridiculous."

I agree. If that was my only reason for not believing in the reliability of the NT, it would be ridiculous. But that is just ONE of the MANY reasons that make me think they are unreliable. Again, you have to look at the whole picture. I have never once stated that the fact that the NT is nothing but copies of copies alone is good enough reason alone to dismiss them.

" Unless your sources are willing to do the same for every ancient text ever written (and I'm guessing they're not), then they're being completely inconsistent in doing so for the NT. They're holding the Bible to a different standard."

They don’t have to do that for every other ancient text. Again, this reason alone is not anything. Put that together with every other aspect and you get the point. No true scholar of ancient literature would simply dismiss an ancient text for one reason. The bible is actually held to VERY LOOSE standards, as does most ancient texts. The bible isn’t being asked for anything that a scholar wouldn’t want from any other text in order to be taken as truth. Not one thing.

"ABIGAIL: Maybe for you. But it is very problematic for me and for other skeptics and atheists around the world"

DAVID: Sure, but only when it comes to the NT, I'm assuming."

Nope. As I have explained to you about 10 times now. Try and remember it next time, okay? Doing some quick research into the science of ancient texts and their analysis could clear this matter up for you. But that involves independent reading, so…

"For all of these other texts, I'm guessing that these same skeptics and atheists have no problem agreeing that the copies of copies that we have are relatively accurate reproductions of what the original authors wrote."

Nope. As I have explained to you about 10 times now. Try and remember, okay?

"ABIGAIL: Especially when you are using those exact texts as the reasons why I should believe that some guy was magic and the God of all Gods"

DAVID: Again, I'm not asking you to do so, just to accept the fact that the copies we have are, per the evidence, reliable representations of what the original authors wrote."

I would, if it passed the tests put forth by biblical scholars.

"This is a completely separate issue from whether what they wrote was true or not."

Agreed. Never said it wasn’t. But put it all together and what do we have…??? A big piles of bulls**t with shoddy evidence!

"Because the manuscript support is strong enough to show that they are relatively accurate representations of what the original authors wrote."

What books have you read on the history of the bible again? I must have missed your list. I’m just curious where you get your “facts” from. This goes against the scholarly books I have read on the subject.

"If you have problem with what the original authors wrote, that's your right. But the fact that we only have copies doesn't mean that what we have is wildly different than what the authors wrote."

Again, that’s not the only reason why the NT has failed to be considered a reliable source. As I have already explained to you like 10 times now. Try and remember that, okay?

"Really? So you think that having only a few copies of an ancient text is no worse or different than having thousands? Scholars will tell you that having more copies amounts to greater manuscript support than having fewer."

And yet the NT copies STILL have tons of discrepancies and errors. I wonder why this is….

"But that doesn't change the fact that having *more* copies amounts to greater manuscript support than having *fewer*."

Ummm, totally off topic from what my quote was talking about, but okay. I have already answered this point of yours. Apparently you couldn’t address what my quote was actually dismissing. Or didn’t want to. Whatever. I brought it up again in this response so hopefully you will address it this time.

"Which is why you need to read the works of scholars on both sides, not just on one side.

Ummm, no. I don’t read books on any “side”. Or the ones I do read from a certain perspective would never, ever be used as proof or evidence. I read history books and books written by scholars and experts. The books I have read about the history of the NT were not written from any particular side. As Ehrman explains, it is NOT the job of the scholar to state their beliefs or opinions. If they do so, they are being intellectually dishonest. I read books that are written by completely objective voices.

"This is why I, personally, prefer to discuss stuff with people rather than just read what one scholar (on whichever side) has to say."

You won’t read at all. You’ve already told me this. This is why you will be in the dark forever and be more or less a joke to intelligent people. Let’s be honest though, the real reason you don’t want to read books is because you are scared to see the evidence. It’s pretty obvious at this point.

"Monologue can be dishonest and biased, but dialogue keeps both sides honest and evens out the biases."

Only if the people doing the talking are educated on the subjects they discuss. Other wise you have people giving their assumptions and opinions. That’s f**king pointless.

No, 400 years later was when those biographies were *written*, not when the earliest copies were from. Those biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch, who lived 4 centuries after Alexander. The earliest existing copies were from later than that.

Not applicable. For the reasons I stated above.

"What makes you think that Pilate never related to *anybody* what happened when he questioned Jesus? This trial was quite controversial, and people on both sides would have wanted to know what happened. I doubt Pilate told the apostles directly, but he certainly told *someone*, wouldn't you agree? Word about what happened there could easily have gotten around to the apostles."

So now the gospels are comprised of stories that literally went through a long line of people (other than the alleged authors) before ending up getting written down? You think this HELPS your argument that these stories are reliable??? LOL! You just gave me more reasons to doubt.

"What goal posts? Your example of Matthew’s name appearing 2 times in 3rd person is not evidence of what I told you wasn't there. I asked for proof of authorship."

No, you asked me to show you where an author stated his own name. I gave you one. Now you're saying that it doesn't count, since, even though he stated his name, it was in third person. That's a textbook example of "moving the goalposts".

"If we went by your theory and attribute authorship to the names of the people in the stories we could also say that Jesus himself wrote the Gospels. His name is there in the 3rd person too."

What? You think I'm saying that anyone whose name is in the Gospel wrote it? Jeez, I guess I better explain again. What I'm saying is that if a writing is widely attributed to a specific author, then that person probably wrote it, unless there is evidence that he didn't. Got it now? I don't know why, but you keep accusing me of saying or believing things that I clearly don't.

"Can I see the evidence that both of those men [Josephus and Caesar] never either signed their names or claimed authorship over their works?"

Here are links to their works. Go ahead and look for yourself:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/

http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Caesar.html

The only thing I've seen in either work giving credit to the author is in Vossius' supplement to Caesar's "Civil War", but this was added by Vossius later in response to some people claiming that Caesar's works were actually written by Suetonius. There is still nowhere in either author's work that they take credit for having written their texts.

Hmmm...but come to think of it, since we do have evidence of people of that day having credited Caesar's work to another author, this automatically makes the evidence for Caesar's authorship *weaker* than it is for the synoptic Gospels, since we have no evidence of anyone from ancient times crediting those works to other authors. We do for John, but, as with Caesar, the contrary evidence is too weak to be convincing.

And one interesting thing is that in the preface to one of Josephus' books, he *does* talk about himself in the first-person, "I". But the "I" never identifies himself as being Josephus, never using the name at all there, so this isn't evidence that *Josephus* wrote that book, just that *someone* did, which we already know.

"Your lip service ain't cutting it. It is also worth noting that in both cases the writings of those men contain autobiographical accounts. :-)"

True, but they write about themselves in third person, and you said third-person accounts don't cut it.

"None of these examples that you use for arguing against the facts of the NT work. None of them. 1st of all, my belief that Jesus never existed does not rest solely upon 1 factor. It rests upon the culmination of the evidence."

I understand. My reasons for believing in Jesus aren't just about one factor, either. But what I'm saying is that your claim, that the credited authors were written about in third person is evidence that they didn't write it is somehow evidence that they didn't write it, is incorrect. Ancient authors frequently wrote about themselves in third person, so an ancient author doing so is not evidence that they didn't write their text.

"95% of your "proof" against the things I have stated about the gospels has been you simply making conclusions based on 1 aspect of another ancient example. You cannot take that conclusion and transfer it to the bible. That is intellectually dishonest."

Not at all. I'm just holding the NT to the same standards to which scholars hold other writings. The reasons you give for dismissing the authorship of the NT texts would, if applied consistently, disprove the authorship of other ancient texts for who the authorship is not in serious doubt.

"For each time you try and use this type of flawed reasoning as "proof" I will simply respond with "Not Applicable for the reasons I explain above”."

Then explain your reasons for accepting that Josephus and Caesar (and other ancient authors) wrote their texts, but for not accepting that M,M,L&J wrote theirs. Make sure those reasons are consistent.

"DAVID:You're free to subscribe to whatever theory you like, but if you're hoping to convince anyone, then you need to either provide evidence or explain why this is a more likely theory than the theory that the given names were the original titles.

ABIGAIL: It's not my theory. It is the theory of the scholars I have mentioned."

I know. I said it was the theory you "subscribe" to, not a theory that originated with you.

"These guys have seen the earliest copies and have directly compared them to later copies. They are both fluent in dead languages as well to be able to critically compare ancient texts. I have never, ever, in my entire life seen anything from a scholar that states that the Gospels came with titles. Again, the burden of proof is on you here since you are stating things that go against the scholars."

How about using common sense? There's zero evidence that the dates were added later, and the idea that the synoptics went for almost a full century without titles, despite the massive confusion this would have caused among those reading and copying those texts, and the fact that texts of great length rarely, if ever, went title-less, makes zero sense.

"Why is it so impractical? When you tell stories about your past do you give them working titles?"

If it's going to be a lengthy story that I'm writing down, intending for people to share with others, yes.

"When you repeat stories that you heard from other people do you have a specific title for that story?"

If it's going to be a lengthy story that I'm writing down, intending for people to share with others, yes.

"When you tell someone about your religion do you say that you are going to tell them about Jesus or say that you are going to tell then about Christianity?"

Depends what I'm going to tell them, I suppose.

"Or do you have a specific title for your spiel?"

If it's a lengthy story that I'm writing down, intending for people to share with others, yes.

"I am not at liberty to say what they called them. I have never seen any evidence to show what they called them."

No one has ever seen alternate titles for the Gospels, which suggests that they never had alternate titles.

"Unlike you I don't fill in the blanks with my unfounded ideas and assumptions."

The idea that the titles were added in the mid-second century is an unfounded idea and assumption. There's no evidence for it.

"Considering that much of the Gospels are comprised of copies that date all over the 1st - 4th centuries should tell you that there wasn't a canonical book like the one we have now. The NT was put together MUCH later."

Yes, the individual books were compiled much later, but that doesn't reflect on the contents of the books themselves.

"By studying all the fragmented copies they were able to put together what they believe to be the book of Luke, etc."

Great. So what we have now is what scholars believe is a reliable reproduction of what Luke's Gospel originally said. Exactly what I'm saying.

"Again, if you have any evidence that the pieces of texts that the experts have which date all over the place each had a working title, now would be the time to present it."

The fact that they each ended up with the *exact same title* is overwhelming evidence that the title was assigned to the original texts before people started copying and passing them around and discussing them. The odds of this happening if the titles were added almost a century later is incredibly small.

"DAVID: And did they provide evidence for the texts originally being title-less? Or are they simply assuming it in order to justify their theories?

ABIGAIL: No. Scholars typically do not assume things without proof. This would be intellectually dishonest. They may BELIEVE something in their personal lives but they wouldn't put that in their history books."

Great, so you're saying they provided evidence, right? What is that evidence?

"Then the case is closed. You cannot prove that they had titles and the experts, scholars, people who studied these ancient texts state that they were written anonymously with no titles. Scholars state that the titles we see in our bibles were added in the 2nd century. Case closed."

I agree. Case closed. There's no evidence for the irrational theory that the titles were added years later.

"I was asking if Josephus did or didn't. Note I never stated that he did."

You said that you bet he did.

"What I believe about the Gospels has nothing to do with my whim. It has everything to do with the copies of the gospels that we have, and what they don't contain - a signature, title or claim of authorship. I'm just going by the gospels themselves here. I can't go by anything else."

But you can recognize the fact that most ancient documents for which the authorship isn't in doubt, such as the historical texts of Josephus and Caesar, we don't have a signature, title (at least one that can be proven to have been assigned to the text within 100 years of its writing) or claim of authorship.

"Can't compare Josephus to people we don't know anything about. You are comparing a real person, Josephus, who included much autobiographical information in his writings, who was written about during his lifetime,"

Who wrote about Josephus during his lifetime? As far as I know, no one wrote about Josephus during his lifetime. But Luke and Mark were written about during their lifetimes, by Paul (see 2 Timothy 4:11)

"etc, etc to guys that we don't know anything about. Luke, Mark? Who were they? Their names don't even appear in the 3rd person in their Gospels!"

Because they weren't part of those stories.

"We don't have any info about these guys."

Sure we do. Besides Paul, many early Christians wrote about them, including Papias (who wrote about Mark), Hippolytus (also wrote about Mark), Clement (Mark), Eusebius (Mark and Luke), Iranaeus (Luke), Tertullian (Luke). For Josephus, I don't think we have anything other than what he wrote about himself. Scholars don't even know when he died, so they just assume it was around 100 AD, since that's about when his most recent text was written.

"Can't compare. Plus, were Josephus' writings done during his lifetime?"

Obviously. As were all of the Gospels for their writers.

"We know that Josephus existed, right?"

All evidence says he did, same as with the Gospel authors.

"We have descriptions of him and writings from him and writings about him that date from the time he lived, right?"

Just writings. There's a Roman bust that's supposedly of him, but no one knows if it dates to the time he lived or not, or if it really resembles him.

"We have portraits of him, right?"

Nothing that dates to anywhere around his lifetime.

"So...what was your point again?"

That the evidence you're using against the Gospel authorship would, if applied consistently, "disprove" Josephus' authorship of his texts. And the authorship of many, many other ancient writings whose authorships aren't in doubt.

"You haven't been able to show me 1 piece of evidence that proves the authorship the NT. I have given you tons of evidence against it."

You've given me *no* evidence against it. And, again, when a writing is widely credited to a given author, then this is evidence that the author wrote the text, unless there is evidence to the contrary. You've questioned the authorship, but presented no evidence against it.

"DAVID: Out of curiosity, did Ehrman and Metzger agree that the apostles could have dictated the Gospels to those more fluent in writing Greek, or did they ignore this pretty obvious possibility? If they considered it, what was their opinion of it?

ABIGAIL: If there is no evidence to suggest that this is what happened then the scholars SHOULD ignore it."

Really? So are you saying I should ignore their claims that the Gospels were anonymous until the 2nd century?

"If they were to make up theories based on their own opinions then they would be terribly subjective and not a credible source."

The fact that the apostles *could have* dictated the Gospels, as I said, isn't a theory. It's a reality. Whether they did or not, they certainly *could have*.

I'll ask you directly - do you believe it's possible that they *could have* dictated the Gospels? Not that they did, but that they *could have*? If not, why?

But if those scholars are claiming that the Gospel titles were added in the second century, then this is a theory based on their own opinions, since there's zero evidence to support the idea that they were added so late. So I guess they're terribly subjective and not credible sources, huh?

"I will have to read this later when I get time. But if this is a article that states that Greek was a language being spoken in the areas where Jesus and his buddies were hanging out, then I have to remind you that I am aware of this. The question isn't whether or not SOMEBODY was able to speak Greek. The question is whether or not the men described in the gospels as uneducated, peasants where able to read and write well in a 2nd language."

No, it's whether these uneducated peasants were able to read and write (or at least dictate) well in a second language *forty years later*.

"Since I have zero evidence that suggests that these anonymous, uneducated, illiterate peasants went back to school learn how to read and write and then to learn a 2nd language, I cannot make such a claim. Neither can you or anyone else. This is nothing but assumption."

Your belief that they *didn't* become educated enough to write in Greek, or that they couldn't have dictated to someone who could, is *also* an assumption. You seem to have no problem using your own assumptions, when it suits you.

"What were they around 70 AD? I obviously missed this part in the bible. I know people's lives can change. But I am not going to assume somebody's life changes simply because they can."

Around 70 AD, they (at least Matthew and John) were preachers, telling people about the events surrounding Jesus. There's no reason to believe that they were still peasant fishermen. For that matter, there's no evidence Matthew was *ever* a peasant fisherman. The Bible says he was a tax collector, and, as such, was probably relatively wealthy and literate (though not in Greek at the time).

"ABIGAIL: "So are you telling me that you think the apostles were telling NO ONE about this stuff until they just had to burst and tell someone? Then they, after decades of silence, ran out and found a bilingual Aramaic/Greek scribe to do their writing for them. Is this your theory? Interesting. :-)"

DAVID: You do realize that there are ways of telling people things other than writing them down, right?

ABIGAIL: Ummm, yes. That's why I said that the stories were being spread orally, like wildfire. I've stated this more than once."

Read what you wrote above. You said that they must have been "telling no one" prior to their writing it down. I'm was wondering what made you think they couldn't have been telling people before writing it down.

"DAVID: I'm just trying to ponder out how you think the fact that they waited a while before writing them down equals their not having told anyone what they saw.

ABIGAIL: Ummm, you get this from...where? When I said that they were spreading their stories orally for decades? Confused again."

I got it from what you said above. Here, I'll quote it: ""So are you telling me that you think the apostles were telling NO ONE about this stuff until they just had to burst and tell someone? Then they, after decades of silence, ran out and found a bilingual Aramaic/Greek scribe to do their writing for them."

"DAVID: I agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out why you think that Luke was claiming that the other Gospel writers were also simply writing down the stories that had been handed down to them. He never mentions the other Gospel writers in Luke 1:4, just those who witnessed and those who heard. You seem to be adding them in where you think they belong.

ABIGAIL: Luke 1:4 -1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Uh-huh. Still doesn't settle the issue. Luke talks about how *they* handed the story down to *us*. What I'm asking is what makes you think the other Gospel writers are among the *us* and not the *they*?

"I agree. If that was my only reason for not believing in the reliability of the NT, it would be ridiculous. But that is just ONE of the MANY reasons that make me think they are unreliable. Again, you have to look at the whole picture. I have never once stated that the fact that the NT is nothing but copies of copies alone is good enough reason alone to dismiss them."

Right. You're saying it's one piece of evidence, not the whole picture. What I'm saying is that it's not even one piece of evidence.

"They don’t have to do that for every other ancient text. Again, this reason alone is not anything. Put that together with every other aspect and you get the point. No true scholar of ancient literature would simply dismiss an ancient text for one reason."

Right. They'd have to have several. The problem is, you don't have several. You don't even have one.

"What books have you read on the history of the bible again? I must have missed your list. I’m just curious where you get your “facts” from. This goes against the scholarly books I have read on the subject."

Then you're reading the wrong books. Here's an article summarizing the strength of the NT manuscript support: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

"And yet the NT copies STILL have tons of discrepancies and errors. I wonder why this is…."

It's because we have *tons* of copies.

"As Ehrman explains, it is NOT the job of the scholar to state their beliefs or opinions. If they do so, they are being intellectually dishonest. I read books that are written by completely objective voices."

Yet who claim that the Gospel titles were added in the 2nd century, despite there being no evidence for this.

"Let’s be honest though, the real reason you don’t want to read books is because you are scared to see the evidence. It’s pretty obvious at this point."

Yet I'm offering up to $1000 for that evidence.

"So now the gospels are comprised of stories that literally went through a long line of people (other than the alleged authors) before ending up getting written down? You think this HELPS your argument that these stories are reliable??? LOL! You just gave me more reasons to doubt."

Wow. You're good at twisting what people are saying, I'll give you that.

David

12/18/09