Go back to Page 2

Dan responded: "In the case of the gnostic gospels, we have evidence that they weren't written by the disciples - the fact that they were written long after their credited "authors" died. That's not the case with M, M, L & J., though. Those texts appear to have been written within their authors' lifetimes. The only Gnostic text that may have been written during the apostle's lifetime is Thomas...but the author calls himself "Didymus Judas Thomas", which does not appear to be the name of the apostle Thomas. For one thing, Didymus is a Greek name, not a Hebrew name. It's very unlikely that the apostle Thomas would have adopted a Greek name." You seem to be missing my point: it's impossible to prove or disprove who wrote what gospel, or what source, or what notes, be it gnostic or Canonized. To say "This text was written earlier, that's my proof it's the real author/story" is disturbingly lazy on your part. I will make three points to counter this: -Many Gnostics taught that their traditions were passed orally by disciples, which is especially convincing when we know the disciples couldn't write. -Proto-orthodox church fathers had incentive to destroy Gnostic scripture, so our "earliest dating" of Gnostic texts can't be correlated to when Gnostic texts were actually being written/read. -The Bible and early church fathers themselves speak against Gnostic groups - implying these groups were formed just as early as the proto-orthodox groups. This then implies that Gnostic teachings were circulating just as early as Orthodox teachings after Jesus' death. The timing of when these teachings were actually written down is, therefore, irrelevant for proving the disciple connection. Your assumption that "early text" means "authored by disciples" is based on very naive, very large assumptions. There's no way for us to know which method disciples preferred: text or oral tradition. But considering their Jewish background and their lack of writing skills, it seems much more likely that the texts claiming to first to be an oral tradition of the disciples is more likely to be the genuine tradition rather than the text claiming to be written by the disciples themselves. "DAN: -Because some early Church fathers claimed to meet with disciples to verify the Gospels? Just so happens that the Gnostics claimed to do the same thing, so who to believe?" DAVID: How about those who were around at the time? Many of the early church fathers lived at the same time that the apostles did. None of the gnostic writers who claimed to have met with the disciples lived at the same time as the disciples." Two points: -Church fathers had no way of proving a disciple was actually a disciple, other than taking their word. -As far as we know, the Gnostic writers did not live at the same time, but the Gnostic teachings and believers did. "The fact that the "Q" document was a collection of sayings doesn't mean that Jerome and others were in error about an early Aramaic version of Matthew's Gospel ("proto-Matthew"). All it would mean is that the "Q" document and "proto-Matthew" weren't one and the same. It doesn't mean that they couldn't have been two *separate* writings. What's wrong with the idea that Matthew first took notes, and then later compiled a Gospel?" I'll confront your points one at a time, despite the massive amount of confusion going on here: ------------------------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: Mark used Matthew's hypothetical "notes" to write his Gospel. PROBLEM 1: If we're to believe Mark used Matthew's notes, and that Matthew also used his own notes, then that would imply the similar info between them would likely be the "notes" part. 94% of Mark is found in Matt while 45% of Matt is found in Mark. This then implies that Mark didn't even write a Gospel, since 94% of his Gospel is likely a copy of Matthew's notes. PROBLEM 2: Some places between Matthew and Mark copy each other word for word in the Greek. This implies a Greek source was being used between the two to write their Gospels, not a Hebrew source. If they had both been using a Hebrew source for their Greek Gospels it's highly unlikely that any sections would've been written exactly the same in Greek. PROBLEM 3: In places where Mark/Matt are telling similar stories, Mark consistently has less sophisticated diction and grammar. This implies that it's highly unlikely Mark used any Greek source originating from Matthew, and rather that Matthew had used Mark's Gospel and cleaned up some of Mark's sloppy grammar and diction. PROBLEM 4: Mark never mentions basing his writing off of notes from Matthew - something that would be a significant piece of information if Mark were trying to prove that he was telling the "true" version of what happened. The church fathers never speak of Matthew writing down notes. Your claim that these notes existed, let alone were written by Matthew, is purely hypothetical. ----------------------------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: Matthew originally wrote his notes in Hebrew, then his gospel in Hebrew was based off of these notes, and then had his Hebrew gospel translated into Greek. PROBLEM: The Greek sentence structure and word structure of Matthew/Mark/Luke is too close for Matthew to have independently translated his original Hebrew gospel in Greek unless you think also think Mark/Luke were then copying from Matthew's "Greek gospel." This then runs into the "Mark dumbing down Matt's Greek" problem. Also, the church fathers make no mention of there being a Greek gospel of Matthew being used for anything or even existing for centuries, implying that Mark/Luke/Matthew were all using a Greek source that had no discernable relation to any of those three disciples. -------------------------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: Matt/Mark/Luke all used Matt's notes. PROBLEM: Parts of Matt/Mark/Luke are completely identical to each other in Greek language structure. If they were all using Matthew's Hebrew notes to write their Gospels into Greek, their individual Greek translation would not have matched so closely. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synoptic_word-for-word.png [NOTE FROM DAVID: Though I usually link texts people use in debate, my program isn't letting me link this one for some reason - it says it contains illegal characters or is too long - if you would like to see the page, cut-and-paste the link into your browser] Once again this implies there was no common Hebrew source they were using. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: Mark and Matthew both used the "Q" document as a source. PROBLEM: The Q document is actually a hypothetical document that was used between MATT and LUKE, not Mark and Matt. First you said Matt/Mark/Luke used Matt's notes, now you're saying Mark/Matt used Q. Then you also say Matthew's Greek gospel is actually a retranslation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, which was originally based on Matthew's own notes. Are you just making stuff up as you go along? Because really, I'm not sure how much more I'm willing to sift through your mess of arguments that nobody else actually believes in. ------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: The page doesn't give evidence that Matthew didn't write the Greek Gospel. 1) Matt's Hebrew Gospel was the only Gospel attributed to Matt and used by early church fathers for centuries after Jesus' death. 2) The Greek version of Matt is much more likely to have been based on shared Greek sources, not a Hebrew sources such as his "original Hebrew gospel," due to striking similarities in the Greek language/structure between the three 3) Mark never makes mention of Matt having notes, or him basing the majority of his Gospel off of Matt's notes, despite it being a vital part of his documentation to prove it's the "real story" By reviewing these points, it's obvious that the Greek Gospel of Matthew has no discernible connection to Matthew the disciple. In any case, it seems you'll use the same old line of belief that most religious people do: If it can't be proven or disproven, you should believe it's true by default. You should try to name me one area of life that we humans use this kind of reasoning for other than religion. It's intellectually cowardly. Dan

I replied: "You seem to be missing my point: it's impossible to prove or disprove who wrote what gospel, or what source, or what notes, be it gnostic or Canonized." I agree that it's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" these things. We have to go with the preponderance of the evidence here. What I'm saying is that the evidence definitely favors the reliability of the Biblical Gospels over the Gnostic ones. "-Many Gnostics taught that their traditions were passed orally by disciples, which is especially convincing when we know the disciples couldn't write." If they were passed orally, then they were passed that way for up to three centuries. In the case of the Biblical Gospels, the evidence favors them having been written or dictated directly by M, M, L and J., who were either first- or second-hand witnesses. If the Biblical and Gnostic Gospels disagree, I think it's wise to favor the ones that were closer to the source than the ones that were written several generations removed from the source. "-Proto-orthodox church fathers had incentive to destroy Gnostic scripture, so our "earliest dating" of Gnostic texts can't be correlated to when Gnostic texts were actually being written/read" Okay. So you're saying it's hypothetically possible that the Gnostic texts were written in the first century. Perhaps. But it's certain that M, M, L, and J were written in the first century. Therefore, it's wise to favor M, M, L and J over the Gnostic texts, where they disagree. "-The Bible and early church fathers themselves speak against Gnostic groups - implying these groups were formed just as early as the proto-orthodox groups." Just as early, perhaps. As close to Jesus as the apostles? Absolutely not. Again, M, M, L and J were written by first- or second-hand witnesses to the events and appear to have been accepted by Jesus' followers in the first century. The same cannot be said for the Gnostics. "This then implies that Gnostic teachings were circulating just as early as Orthodox teachings after Jesus' death. The timing of when these teachings were actually written down is, therefore, irrelevant for proving the disciple connection." Really? So, hypothetically, if the Biblical Gospels could have been shown to have been written in the 3rd century, are you saying that you would consider them just as reliable as if they had been written in the 1st century? You don't think that details can be muddled if a story is spread orally over 200 years before being written down? If I have to choose between one story that is written close to the events, and an alternate version of the story that was written down far removed from the events, I'd favor the one written closer to the events. "Your assumption that "early text" means "authored by disciples" is based on very naive, very large assumptions." When did I imply that "early text" means "authored by disciples"? What I'm saying is that if it's credited to a disciple and apparently written within that disciple's lifetime, then this is evidence (though, I agree, not "proof") that the disciple wrote it. If it's credited to a disciple and apparently *not* written within that disciple's lifetime, then this is evidence that the disciple did not write it. If there was evidence that the Gnostic texts were written by a disciple within his lifetime, I'd consider that evidence. "There's no way for us to know which method disciples preferred: text or oral tradition." I'm sure they told people orally at first. But once they started getting older and knew that they wouldn't be around much longer, they'd want to make sure their stories would be preserved for future generations, which meant getting them written down. "But considering their Jewish background and their lack of writing skills, it seems much more likely that the texts claiming to first to be an oral tradition of the disciples is more likely to be the genuine tradition rather than the text claiming to be written by the disciples themselves." How do you figure that? Keeping in mind that they could have dictated, their "lack of writing skills" is irrelevant. A text claiming to be the words of the disciple himself, and written within that disciple's lifetime, is definitely more likely to reflect what really happened than a text written many centuries later based on oral tradition. Even if, hypothetically, the Biblical Gospels were simply someone writing down "oral tradition", it would still be far more reliable than the Gnostic texts, since "oral tradition" being written down in same century as the events will be more reliable that "oral tradition" being written down centuries after the events. "-Church fathers had no way of proving a disciple was actually a disciple, other than taking their word" But I think you'll agree that it's far more likely that the person was a direct disciple of Jesus if this meeting happened in the first century, when the disciples were still around and preaching, right? "-As far as we know, the Gnostic writers did not live at the same time, but the Gnostic teachings and believers did." Okay. But I'd still take the word of those closer to the events (both in time and proximity) over those further from it. At best, we can say that the gnostics might have met the disciples. That doesn't make them more reliable than the disciples themselves, especially since the gnostics were writing centuries later. "YOU SAY: Mark used Matthew's hypothetical "notes" to write his Gospel. PROBLEM 1: If we're to believe Mark used Matthew's notes, and that Matthew also used his own notes, then that would imply the similar info between them would likely be the "notes" part. 94% of Mark is found in Matt while 45% of Matt is found in Mark. This then implies that Mark didn't even write a Gospel, since 94% of his Gospel is likely a copy of Matthew's notes." Hardly, the "94%" largely has to do with them writing about the same events in the same order, which we would expect if we have two people writing about the same series of events. "PROBLEM 2: Some places between Matthew and Mark copy each other word for word in the Greek. This implies a Greek source was being used between the two to write their Gospels, not a Hebrew source. If they had both been using a Hebrew source for their Greek Gospels it's highly unlikely that any sections would've been written exactly the same in Greek." Hmmm...that's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered. I do believe that Mark got most of his story from Peter anyways, so Mark's use of Matthew's notes is probably pretty minimal, if at all. I'll consider myself to have stood corrected on this point. As for why there are similarities in the Greek, I believe that the Gospels weren't written in a vacuum. When Matthew was writing his Greek Gospel, Mark's Greek Gospel already existed and would have been a handy source for how to write certain phrases in Greek, in those cases where Matthew was telling a story that Mark had already told. "PROBLEM 3: In places where Mark/Matt are telling similar stories, Mark consistently has less sophisticated diction and grammar. This implies that it's highly unlikely Mark used any Greek source originating from Matthew, and rather that Matthew had used Mark's Gospel and cleaned up some of Mark's sloppy grammar and diction." I agree. Mark clearly did not have a Greek source, and I agree that Matthew used and cleaned up Mark's Greek. "PROBLEM 4: Mark never mentions basing his writing off of notes from Matthew - something that would be a significant piece of information if Mark were trying to prove that he was telling the "true" version of what happened. The church fathers never speak of Matthew writing down notes. Your claim that these notes existed, let alone were written by Matthew, is purely hypothetical." Yes, it's hypothetical. But it makes sense. We know that Matthew was a tax collector, so he would have been literate and inclined to write things down. "YOU SAY: Matthew originally wrote his notes in Hebrew, then his gospel in Hebrew was based off of these notes, and then had his Hebrew gospel translated into Greek. PROBLEM: The Greek sentence structure and word structure of Matthew/Mark/Luke is too close for Matthew to have independently translated his original Hebrew gospel in Greek unless you think also think Mark/Luke were then copying from Matthew's "Greek gospel." This then runs into the "Mark dumbing down Matt's Greek" problem." I definitely favor Mark's Greek Gospel having been written before Matthew's, and that Matthew cleaned up Mark's Greek to some extent. "Also, the church fathers make no mention of there being a Greek gospel of Matthew being used for anything or even existing for centuries," We have fragments from the second century (one fragment arguably dates to the first century, but there's no consensus on that dating), meaning we have evidence of it existing well before "centuries". I'm not aware of any scholar who dates Greek Matthew to outside of the 1st century. "implying that Mark/Luke/Matthew were all using a Greek source that had no discernable relation to any of those three disciples." How does it imply a completely different Greek source? Mark's Gospel could easily have been the first "Greek" source. "YOU SAY: Matt/Mark/Luke all used Matt's notes. PROBLEM: Parts of Matt/Mark/Luke are completely identical to each other in Greek language structure. If they were all using Matthew's Hebrew notes to write their Gospels into Greek, their individual Greek translation would not have matched so closely. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synoptic_word-for-word.png Once again this implies there was no common Hebrew source they were using." That doesn't imply that there could be no Hebrew source, just that it's not the only source used. Again, the Gospels weren't written in a vacuum. Every Gospel writer was probably aware of any Gospels written before it and would have used them when writing their own, when they were relating the same events. "YOU SAY: Mark and Matthew both used the "Q" document as a source. PROBLEM: The Q document is actually a hypothetical document that was used between MATT and LUKE, not Mark and Matt. First you said Matt/Mark/Luke used Matt's notes, now you're saying Mark/Matt used Q." I'm saying that Matt's notes essentially *are* Q. But as I said earlier, you raised a good point about Mark's Gospel probably not relying heavily (if at all) on Matt's notes, so I'll stand corrected on that idea. "1) Matts Hebrew Gospel was the only Gospel attributed to Matt and used by early church fathers for centuries after Jesus' death." But all evidence says that Greek Matthew existed in the first century, and if it was the primary "Matthew", then we would expect the earliest existing fragments and copies to have been written in Hebrew. But the earliest existing fragments and copies are all in Greek. The church fathers primarily spoke Hebrew, as far as I know, so for them, a Hebrew Gospel would have been preferable to a Greek one. But for pretty much the rest of the Roman Empire, they would have used the Greek, since most of the literate people in Rome were literate in Greek, not Hebrew. "2) The Greek version of Matt is much more likely to have been based on shared Greek sources, not a Hebrew sources such as his "original Hebrew gospel," due to striking similarities in the Greek language/structure between the three." Which would be explained by Matthew having used Mark as a guide for Greek phrasing. "3) Mark never makes mention of Matt having notes, or him basing the majority of his Gospel off of Matt's notes, despite it being a vital part of his documentation to prove it's the "real story" At the time, "documentation" wasn't the big deal it is nowadays. Even the historians of the day like Tacitus and Josephus tended not to give documentation for their claims. "By reviewing these points, it's obvious that the Greek Gospel of Matthew has no discernible connection to Matthew the disciple." It doesn't show that at all. There's no reason to believe it wasn't authored by Matthew the disciple. Obviously, somebody wrote it. No evidence says that this "somebody" was unlikely to have been Matthew. "In any case, it seems you'll use the same old line of belief that most religious people do: If it can't be proven or disproven, you should believe it's true by default. You should try to name me one area of life that we humans use this kind of reasoning for other than religion. It's intellectually cowardly." We use it a lot. I told you my name is David. I have not proven or disproven that, have I? Yet you believe it, I assume. If I told you I lived in Michigan (I do), you would probably go ahead and believe it despite my failure to prove or disprove it. Especially when it comes to writings, people tend to believe that the credited author is the author unless there is evidence to the contrary. I can't "prove" or "disprove" that Edgar Allen Poe wrote "The Raven", but unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll believe he did. Why do we believe that the historical texts of Tacitus were written by Tacitus and not some other author? Because it's his name on the texts. That's the exact same evidence we have for the Biblical authors having written their texts. Only when there is some evidence that the authorship is incorrect, or the claims of authorship are somehow "extraordinary", do we have cause to doubt the credited authorship. David

Dan responded: So now we come down to a more particular point, almost a single argument that needs debate. First: Did the disciples give their stories to early church fathers or to Gnostic leaders? YOU SAY: What I'm saying is that if it's credited to be a disciple and apparently written within that disciple's lifetime, then this is evidence (though, I agree, not "proof") that the disciple wrote it. If it's credited to a disciple and apparently *not* written within that disciple's lifetime, then this is evidence that the disciple did not write it. Problem: First of all, the Biblical gospels are credited to be written by disciples only by early orthodox church fathers who had no proof they were actually speaking with a true disciple. Secondly, if a Gnostic text is credited to a disciple's teachings but not written within that disciples lifetime, but ALSO states it's a secret oral tradition, then the timing of the writing can no longer be considered evidence against it's claimed disciple connection. The secrecy of that teaching may have prevented it from being written down for many years. --------------------------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: I'm sure (the Disciples) told people orally at first. But once they started getting older and knew that they wouldn't be around much longer, they'd want to make sure their stories would be preserved for future generations, which meant getting them written down. Problem: You're making assumptions that you have no independent evidence for, especially in light of what Gnostics taught. Gnostics frequently state that their knowledge was kept secret from the masses, that their teachings were deeper and more spiritual than what orthodox Christians believed. They also taught that this secret knowledge was passed directly to their original believers by disciples. What evidence can you provide, outside of orthodox Christian texts themselves, that states disciples were intent on getting their stories written when they got old? Or better yet, what evidence can you provide that implies the disciples didn't pass along secret oral traditions? Especially when we consider all the secrecy Jesus used in his parables and whatnot, it seems likely that disciples would carry on that tradition of secret oral truths to others. --------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: Earlier oral traditions are more accurate the later oral traditions. Problem: The stories in the Old Testament were oral traditions for hundreds and hundreds of years before they were written down - does that make them even more inaccurate than the Gnostic texts supposedly are? I agree with your statement, so long we assume both the early and later oral traditions originated from the same source. One could claim Gnostic texts are an inaccurate portrayal of the original information if the Gnostics had claimed their information served the same purpose. However, Gnostics taught that they received secret teachings from the disciples. It's probable that the differences in story between Gnostic text and Biblical text are due to the purpose of the message rather than the timing of the writing. However, it's also probably that Gnostic oral tradition had been recorded at the same time, but the texts were destroyed and never recovered. ------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: We have no discernible way to reveal what the true message of the disciples may have been or which group they gave their message to. One group of writings claims to be written by eyewitnesses intent on spreading truth across the whole word. Another group of writings claims to be a secret oral tradition passed down by the eyewitnesses. It would make sense, in this context, that the first group wrote their texts earlier and the second group wrote their texts later. Thus the evidence shows that both groups are able to make equally weak claims on disciple authority. -------------------------------------------------------------- Second: After understanding that we have no idea who the real disciples were talking to, how can we determine authorship? YOU SAY: "It isn't likely that the authors lied about Jesus' Resurrection. The idea that all of the Biblical authors, or their sources, were lying involves a conspiracy that would never have held up under the pressure Rome was putting on them." Problem: It's impossible to say whether it's "likely" or "not likely" they lied, especially when you're using a flimsy argument such as Roman pressure. There's no need to even insinuate that there was a "conspiracy that would never have held up." There is a guy in Africa I believe, that currently has a bunch of followers claiming he can perform miracles and heal sick people. Is that a conspiracy, or just a delusional mass of people? There is no way to know the true intention or motivation of the authors. Maybe it was written for a political movement, maybe a spiritual revolution, maybe it was getting stories mixed up. Mark was written, at the earliest, 40 years after Jesus' death after all. All we know is some people believed what these Gospels said and some didn't. Roman pressure would, if anything, solidify one's faith in martyrdom doctrine. ----------------------------------------------- YOU SAY: "It's far more likely that the person was a direct disciple of Jesus if this meeting happened in the first century, when the disciples were still around and preaching, right?" Problem: It's more likely. But Gnostics were also likely to have met with people claiming to be disciples during this time, so does that make "their" disciples more likely to be the true ones as well? You can make that argument both ways. ------------------------------------------------------------ YOU SAY: "Okay. But I'd still take the word of those closer to the events (both in time and proximity) over those further from it." Problem: You can do that if you want. Just realize that, when considering the evidence for both sides, the only thing convincing you is your own faith in the orthodox Christian religious institution, not historical facts. --------------------------------------------- Basically, your "evidence" for Biblical authority rests on many assumptions and faith based claims, which actually has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with hypothetical situations. I'm not really going to respond to the technical debate we were in on authorship, since the conversation above has addressed authorship in a more meaningful way. I will address your final paragraph however. YOU SAY: "We use (the process of assuming something is true) a lot. I told you my name is David. I have not proven or disproven that, have I? Yet you believe it, I assume. If I told you I lived in Michigan (I do), you would probably go ahead and believe it despite my failure to prove or disprove it. Especially when it comes to writings, people tend to believe that the credited author is the author unless there is evidence to the contrary. I can't "prove" or "disprove" that Edgar Allen Poe wrote "The Raven", but unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll believe he did. Why do we believe that the historical texts of Tacitus were written by Tacitus and not some other author? Because it's his name on the texts. That's the exact same evidence we have for the Biblical authors having written their texts. Only when there is some evidence that the authorship is incorrect, or the claims of authorship are somehow "extraordinary", do we have cause to doubt the credited authorship." Problem: Your name can be proven to be David, and you can be proven to live in Michigan. There is solid empirical evidence for these things if you wanted to prove to people it wss true. This means your name and address aren't "unprovable," they very definitely are provable. Your whole hang up on this Bible thing seems to be that we should just "trust" it since it's a writing, since that's what people do with writings. You are using very poor examples to show this, and neglect why you'd even consider this a good idea to begin with. Edgar Allen Poe has traceable publishing roots. He has letters he wrote to many people speaking of his writing career and life. He has a specific literary style and similar thematic material. All of these things provide empirical, observable evidence of authorship. You mention Tacitus. He wrote a massive amount of literature, providing scholars a way to determine if works attributed to him are genuine or not by analyzing his language use and writing style over thousands and thousands of pages. He is also documented in independent records due to his work in the Senate. These things provide empirical, as well as hypothetical evidence of authorship. The problem is your claims of "evidence" for Gospel authorship are purely hypothetical and, as such, hold no more weight or value than hypothetical claims on Gnostic authorship. And I still await a ligitimate example where the concept "if it can't be proven true or false, believe it's true" is used outside of religion.

I responded: Dan, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you (yes, I did get this the first time you sent it). I've got a few other projects I'm working on, so I'm getting behind in responding to people's e-mails. "First of all, the Biblical gospels are credited to be written by disciples only by early orthodox church fathers who had no proof they were actually speaking with a true disciple." The problem is that the disciples' names are part of the name of the text itself. If the names were only attached a century after the fact, then are you saying that the texts originally had alternate names? Or that they had no names at all? The texts were already being widely copied and spread by that time, so the idea that somehow everyone agreed to change the name of the texts, or were originally spreading the texts without a title for those texts and later agreed to give them all the exact same name, are clearly problematic. Lengthy texts rarely, if ever, went title-less while being spread around, since it would have caused great confusion to those who were doing the copying and reading, especially if there were multiple texts telling different versions of the same story. The idea that the titles were "added" in the second century is an irrational theory with zero evidence to support it. "Secondly, if a Gnostic text is credited to a disciple's teachings but not written within that disciples lifetime, but ALSO states it's a secret oral tradition, then the timing of the writing can no longer be considered evidence against it's claimed disciple connection. The secrecy of that teaching may have prevented it from being written down for many years." "May have", perhaps. But if I have to choose between two texts, one of which was written by the disciple personally, and the other of which was written down long after the disciple died and merely "may have" been based on something he said, which do you think I'm going to favor? "What evidence can you provide, outside of orthodox Christian texts themselves, that states disciples were intent on getting their stories written when they got old?" The fact that they went from spreading it orally to writing it down when they got older. That's at least a more rational idea than the idea that the titles were added in the second century. "Or better yet, what evidence can you provide that implies the disciples didn't pass along secret oral traditions? Especially when we consider all the secrecy Jesus used in his parables and whatnot, it seems likely that disciples would carry on that tradition of secret oral truths to others." Again, if I have to choose between "what a person wrote" and "what someone centuries after the fact claimed that this person secretly said", I'm obviously going to consider the former to be more reliable. For example, if someone told me that Abraham Lincoln secretly said something that got passed down to the 21st century, but there's no evidence that he said it, and it conflicts with the things we know Lincoln said or wrote in the 19th century, I'm going to be incredibly skeptical, and definitely favor the 19th century sources over what this guy claims Lincoln said. "YOU SAY: Earlier oral traditions are more accurate the later oral traditions. The stories in the Old Testament were oral traditions for hundreds and hundreds of years before they were written down - does that make them even more inaccurate than the Gnostic texts supposedly are?" Are there earlier oral traditions for the OT stories that conflict with the stories we have now? If so, then I would definitely consider the earlier traditions for the stories more reliable than the later ones. Keep in mind that I'm talking about earlier vs. later traditions *for the same stories*. Later traditions aren't necessarily unreliable, but when choosing between earlier and later traditions for a given story, it's wise to favor the earlier ones. "I agree with your statement, so long we assume both the early and later oral traditions originated from the same source. One could claim Gnostic texts are an inaccurate portrayal of the original information if the Gnostics had claimed their information served the same purpose. However, Gnostics taught that they received secret teachings from the disciples. It's probable that the differences in story between Gnostic text and Biblical text are due to the purpose of the message rather than the timing of the writing. However, it's also probably that Gnostic oral tradition had been recorded at the same time, but the texts were destroyed and never recovered." If we, hypothetically, had gnostic texts that dated just as early as the Gospels, and could have been shown to have been written by people just as close to Jesus as the Gospel authors were, and they conflicted with the Gospels, then, I admit, we'd have an issue (at least in the areas where they disagree). But if I have to choose between information gathered from existing texts and information gathered from texts that may or may not have existed and, if they existed, we have no idea what they might have said at that point, and can only make guesses based on what people were saying centuries later, then I'll go with the information from the existing texts. "We have no discernible way to reveal what the true message of the disciples may have been or which group they gave their message to. One group of writings claims to be written by eyewitnesses intent on spreading truth across the whole word. Another group of writings claims to be a secret oral tradition passed down by the eyewitnesses. It would make sense, in this context, that the first group wrote their texts earlier and the second group wrote their texts later. Thus the evidence shows that both groups are able to make equally weak claims on disciple authority." No, those texts written by the disciples within the disciples' lifetimes, with zero evidence that the authorship credit was false, is FAR stronger than a text supposedly written by "secret tradition" several centuries later. "It's impossible to say whether it's "likely" or "not likely" they lied, especially when you're using a flimsy argument such as Roman pressure. There's no need to even insinuate that there was a "conspiracy that would never have held up." There is a guy in Africa I believe, that currently has a bunch of followers claiming he can perform miracles and heal sick people. Is that a conspiracy, or just a delusional mass of people?" Depends. Are his followers facing the same kind of persecution early Christians faced? Are they claiming to have personally witnessed things that would be impossible except through miraculous events (for example, healing the sick is something that can happen naturally)? Do we have multiple attestations of the same series of events that we can compare? Not knowing the answers to these questions, I can't tell you whether I would favor their claims being delusion, lies or truth. "There is no way to know the true intention or motivation of the authors. Maybe it was written for a political movement, maybe a spiritual revolution, maybe it was getting stories mixed up. Mark was written, at the earliest, 40 years after Jesus' death after all. All we know is some people believed what these Gospels said and some didn't. Roman pressure would, if anything, solidify one's faith in martyrdom doctrine." Not if you were in a position to know that the information you were spreading was false, as the Gospel authors would have been. "YOU SAY: It's far more likely that the person was a direct disciple of Jesus if this meeting happened in the first century, when the disciples were still around and preaching, right? Problem: It's more likely. But Gnostics were also likely to have met with people claiming to be disciples during this time, so does that make "their" disciples more likely to be the true ones as well? You can make that argument both ways." Not if the people doing the actual writing were doing so several centuries later. Sure, it's possible that 1st-century gnostics met with the disciples and got some information from them. But that doesn't mean that the people writing several centuries later, after spreading this information through several generations of tellers, are relaying that exact same information that was received in the 1st century. Things could have gotten twisted around in the meantime. "YOU SAY: Okay. But I'd still take the word of those closer to the events (both in time and proximity) over those further from it. Problem: You can do that if you want. Just realize that, when considering the evidence for both sides, the only thing convincing you is your own faith in the orthodox Christian religious institution, not historical facts." No, it's the text themselves. The religious institutions came later. "Problem: Your name can be proven to be David, and you can be proven to live in Michigan." Okay, but that's completely beside the point. I *haven't* proven it, yet I'm guessing you believe it anyways. "Edgar Allen Poe has traceable publishing roots. He has letters he wrote to many people speaking of his writing career and life. He has a specific literary style and similar thematic material. All of these things provide empirical, observable evidence of authorship." Again, you're missing the point. Neither of us have seen "proof" that E.A. Poe wrote "The Raven", yet I'm guessing you believe he did anyway. Do you? Yes or no? "You mention Tacitus. He wrote a massive amount of literature, providing scholars a way to determine if works attributed to him are genuine or not by analyzing his language use and writing style over thousands and thousands of pages." All of which would only show that *the same person* wrote those texts. So what's the evidence that it was Tacitus and not a different person? "He is also documented in independent records due to his work in the Senate. These things provide empirical, as well as hypothetical evidence of authorship." No, they don't. How do they show that someone else didn't write those texts and simply credit them to Tacitus? "The problem is your claims of "evidence" for Gospel authorship are purely hypothetical and, as such, hold no more weight or value than hypothetical claims on Gnostic authorship." It's the exact same evidence we use for crediting Tacitus for his histories. Are you really saying that the claims that Tacitus wrote his histories holds no more weight or value than the claims of Gnostic authorship? If so, why do you think scholars generally agree that Tacitus wrote his histories, but the Gnostic authorship claims are almost certainly false? "And I still await a ligitimate example where the concept "if it can't be proven true or false, believe it's true" is used outside of religion." I already did. We can't prove that Tacitus wrote the texts credited to him, yet without any evidence to the contrary, people generally believe it to be true. And I can give you many more. In fact, most of what we know about ancient history is just stuff we get from historians. We can't *prove* that all of what they wrote is true. But unless we have strong reason to believe that what a historian said isn't true (such as that it conflicts with what another historian said, or conflicts with geographical data, or is a bizarre claim), we generally believe it to be true. David

Dan responded: "The problem is that the disciples' names are part of the name of the text itself. If the names were only attached a century after the fact, then are you saying that the texts originally had alternate names? Or that they had no names at all? The texts were already being widely copied and spread by that time, so the idea that somehow everyone agreed to change the name of the texts, or were originally spreading the texts without a title for those texts and later agreed to give them all the exact same name, are clearly problematic. Lengthy texts rarely, if ever, went title-less while being spread around, since it would have caused great confusion to those who were doing the copying and reading, especially if there were multiple texts telling different versions of the same story. The idea that the titles were "added" in the second century is an irrational theory with zero evidence to support it." There are some obvious clues that provide support for an anonymous authorship. First, none of the authors actually claim in the text that he was an eyewitness to these events. This would obviously be important if the disciple himself had been writing it or influencing the text. Instead the Gospels read as if it's a collection of stories heard from someone else. Secondly, if the authors were disciples, they wouldn't title their Gospels "The Gospel according to...." Think of it this way. If you saw a book titled "Politics According to Barack Obama" does it imply that Barack Obama wrote the book? Not at all, and in fact implies the opposite: that it's a book written by someone else concerning Obama's politics. Does it imply the author personally knows Barack Obama, or consulted with Barack Obama, or even has a positive view of Barack Obama? Again, not at all. Thirdly, if Matthew or John were written by their accredited disciples, why are their stories and quotes of Jesus so different on so many levels? And at some points blatantly contradictory in theological message? To be more specific about proof of them not being written by disciples: MATTHEW is written in the third person, about what "they" - Jesus and the disciples - were doing. Never what "we" were doing. Even the stories in Matt about Matthew becoming a disciple, it says "him" not "me." The implication is stronger that Matthew didn't write it. JOHN is obviously not written by a disciple, but the author claims the info came from a disciple. The Gospel ends with "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Translation: We (the narrator/writer) know that his (the disciple) testimony is true. A disciple did not write this Gospel. MARK, even if he was the author, he was said to be a companion of Peter. He wasn't a disciple. LUKE, even if he was the author, was a companion of Paul. Neither were disciples. Thus, the contextual evidence demonstrates factually that none of the authors were disciples, and none of the authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus or the events of his life. All the Gospel writers received these stories from other people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm going to skip most of our debate on dating of gnostic/canon texts, since I've recently been reading Ehrman's book on the historical Jesus, which has made me change a few of my arguments. I now have to attack this argument from a complete different direction. First, what I admit you have been correct on, and that I concede: 1) In the context of early dating vs. later dating, one can say that the Gospels are, in general, a more reliable source for Jesus and what he did than Gnostic texts 2) Authorship is difficult to prove. But more importantly in the case of the Gospels, authenticity of the story is even more difficult. What I've written below is a summarized version of the process Ehrman uses to show what we can really say about Jesus' life and death and resurrection, as well how Ehrmans interpretation deals particularly with our debate. I can say that reading Ehrman's book was an awesome experience, and that I hope to give you some very clear answers now about who Jesus probably really was, and why Gospels are unable to verify Resurrections or miracles. If you don't want to read it all, just skip right to the bottom for the main point I have left to make. It's a very good read if you're interested in the historical Jesus, however. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the four criteria that Ehrman uses to establish the veracity of Historical Material. 1) The earlier the better. This is obvious, due to the nature of oral traditions. Mark, being the earliest Gospel, probably contains more reliable information than John. The "Q" source is also reliable - stories that are, almost word for word, similar between Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. This Q source was likely circulating at the same time, or earlier, as Mark's Gospel. Stories only found in Matthew will be called M. Stories special to Luke are called L. Think of these two sources as however you want: notes, sayings of Jesus, etc, that the author used as another source. Therefore, the four best, earliest sources we can use are Mark, Q, M, and L. 2) The more the better. Stories found in multiple, independent sources have a better likelihood of being older, and possibly authentic. Mark, Q, M, and L are independent from each other, so if a similar message is found between them, the message is more authentic. 3) It is better to cut against the grain. If a tradition is changed by an author, it is so the tradition better conforms to their personal theology. Any tradition of Jesus that is dissimilar to what the early Christians would have likely wanted to say about him is more likely authentic. Example: early Christians wouldn't have incentive to invented the story that their supposed Messiah came from a one-horse town of Nazareth that nobody heard of: therefore it's likely true. Early Christians wouldn't have incentive to invent the story that John baptized Jesus for the "forgiveness of sins," (Mark 1:4) since it can imply that Jesus needed to be forgiven of his sins. Thus the story is likely true. 4) It has to fit the context. Traditions about Jesus need to fit the context of first-century Palestine. Example: the story of Nicodemus being confused on the meaning of "from above" (John 19:11). Nicodemus, according to the story, gets confused on the Greek word for "from above" because it can also mean "born again" - Nic asks if he should crawl back in his mothers womb. However, Jesus didn't speak Greek and neither did Nic, so this confusion never would've happened in the first place when they were having a conversation in Aramaic. Thus we can say the story is fabricated by whoever wrote John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Teachings of Jesus There was a high number of Jews during the century of Jesus that were apocalyptics, a philosophy that formed about 150 years before Jesus. They believed the world was filled with forces of good and forces of evil. The current age was controlled by evil -- Devil, demons, disease, natural disasters, but they believed God would soon intervene, overthrow evil, and bring in the Kingdom of God to end the ages of evil. With this context, lets take a look at some of the earliest scriptures and what Jesus has to say. "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.... Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power." Mark 8:38-9:1 "And in those days, after that affliction, the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the sky will be shaken; and then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send forth his angels and he will gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of earth to the end of heaven... Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." Mark 13:24-27, 30 What can we say from these scriptures? The Son of Man is coming, he will judge the world, and some of the people listening to Jesus story will see it happen. Here's another mention of this event from Q: "For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day... And just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving away in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark and flood came and destroyed them all. So too will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed" Luke 17:24; 26-27; Matthew 24:27, 37-39 And a source from M: "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the culmination of the age. The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every cause of sin and all who do evil, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun, in the kingdom of their father." Matthew 13:40-43 So, we can see that Jesus preached the imminent arrival of the Son of Man, bringing judgment upon the earth. This would pass the test of multiple, old sources. Here's another key passage on who this "Son of Man" is: "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:38 This even passes the test #3 of cutting against the grain. Why? Early Christians no doubt believed that Jesus IS the Son of Man, but in this passage, and others, Jesus makes no such implication. If you read these verses it sounds as if Jesus and the Son of Man are two different people. This means the author didn't edit the verse to align with his theology. Here's another very interesting teaching of Jesus from Q: "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:28-30 Why does this cut against the grain? Because Judas is included with the disciples. No early Christian would be willing to say that Judas would be one of the twelve rulers in the Kingdom of God. Judas betrayed the savior of the world! This implies that this saying wasn't made up - it's an authentic teaching of Jesus. There is another very important dissimilarity which I won't quote fully here. Go read Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus says that those who do humanitarian works will go to Heaven, and those who don't will go to hell. Period. There is nothing else you need to do: no believing Jesus is God, no believing in a resurrection. Since early Christians believed the only way to get into heaven was by believing Jesus resurrected, this is not a story they would've invented. Therefore we can say it's likely a genuine teaching. Jesus taught, in short, that the Son of Man was about to judge the world. That people better start following the Golden Rule or else they'll be punished when the Kingdom of God comes. When will the Kingdom of God come? In the disciples' own lifetime: "Some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power" (Mark 9:1); "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" (Mark 13:30). This was even the message of John the Baptist before Jesus, found in Q: "Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 3:9 This is an apocalyptic image of judgment. The ax is ready to begin its work and you better start bearing good fruit or you'll be destroyed in the new age of God. Jesus, based on multiple attestation and dissimilarity, was an apocalypticist from the beginning of his ministry, and remained one. More significantly still, after Jesus' death his followers remained apocalyptically oriented. That is why they thought the end was coming in their day, that Jesus himself was soon coming back from heaven to sit in judgement on the earth (these beliefs are found in Paul's writings, the earliest Christian documents we have). And importantly, why did Jesus want people to change their behavior? The reason to change your behavior was to gain entrance to the kingdom when it came. It was not in order to make society a happy place for the foreseeable future. We've established, according to the earliest sources, that Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher, not a self-proclaimed deity who demands people believe in his future resurrection. We can now start making sense of some of the events in his life in this context. -------------------------------------------------- The Deeds and Activities of Jesus The Baptism: The story is best understand as which branch of Judaism Jesus chose. He had many options open to him: Pharisees, monastic communities like Essenes, Sadducees, military/political Jewish organizations. However, he sided with John, an apocalyptic prophet who was urging people to prepare for the day of judgment. The Twelve Disciples: Why did Jesus choose twelve? According to Jesus, the twelve tribes of Israel would be reconstituted in the coming Kingdom of God, and would be ruled by the twelve disciples. Choosing twelve was a kind of cryptic apocalyptic message on his part. Jesus as Healer/Exorcist: Jesus was widely believed to have done miracles. The miracles occur in multiple independent sources. The traditions cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity of course; storytellers in the early church naturally wanted the people they were trying to convert to understand that Jesus was not a mere mortal but was especially empowered by God. What else was their motivation though? In the future kingdom there will be no evil, no demons, no disease, no natural disasters, no hunger, no death. What does Jesus do? Overcomes evil, casts out demons, heals the sick, clams the storms, feeds the hungry, raises from the dead. In Q we see a man ask Jesus if this is the end of the evil age or if another is to be expected. Jesus says: "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me." Luke 7:22-23 The Kingdom of God is soon to appear, and is already beginning to be manifest in a small way in the deeds of Jesus. Jesus' activities are understood apocalyptically. Trip to Jerusalem: Why did Jesus go to Jerusalem, where he was crucified? He spent the bulk of his ministry in rural areas, and likely decided he needed a bigger audience for his apocalyptic message. He did, after all, want to save as many people as he could. He wanted to take his message to the heart of Judaism, the capital city, the home of the Temple. Why did he wait until Passover? Because the biggest crowds would be there then. In the earliest sources - Matt, Mark, Luke - Jesus spends his last week in Jerusalem preaching a heavily apocalyptic message. See Mark 13, Matthew 24-25. The Cleansing of the Temple: The story goes that Jesus was angry at money-changers, and threw over a bunch of their tables at the Temple. Why did he do this? For one, he might've been angry at them making a small profit off of a money currency exchange. When we use an apocalyptic context however, it becomes clear. Mark shows that Jesus claims the Temple itself will be destroyed with the coming Kingdom of God: Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29. Jesus was performing a symbolic act. The Jews obviously didn't appreciate this since their Temple was the center of worship for the God of Israel, but Jesus was convinced the Temple was corrupt due to his interpretation of Jeremiah 7:1-15, 20:1-6 in the context of his apocalyptic worldview. The Arrest of Jesus: Why was Jesus arrested? Judas certainly betrayed him: no early Christian would've wanted to invent a story that his own disciples turned him in. However, what exactly did Judas say to the authorities that made them condemn Jesus? We need to answer the next event first: King of What?: We covered what Jesus taught about the coming Kingdom of God, but what about what Jesus said about himself? This is important, since he was put to death for the claim he was "King of the Jews." However, this is odd because in the earliest sources Jesus never says any such thing about himself in any of his public proclamations. Why did the Roman authorities believe he claimed this? And why did Jesus not deny it? The term "King of the Jews" would've been a serious political offense to the Romans. It can be viewed as a political rebellion, but Jesus had nothing to do with political rebellion. We need to look at the apocalyptic teachings for the answer. He told his disciples that they would be the rulers over the twelve tribes of Israel in this kingdom that was soon to appear. But who would be ruling over them? Jesus most likely told them in private that He would be their King in this future kingdom. The King of the Jews. How did the Roman authorities find out that Jesus thought of himself this way? Judas. That is why, when Pilate asked Jesus about the situation, Jesus couldn't deny the charge. As as side note, it is important to know that Jews at the time did not believe that, to be a Messiah, one needed to die and then be raised from the dead. So even if Jesus' followers came to believe in the resurrection, this would not be a reason for them to call Jesus the Messiah. They therefore must have thought of him as the Messiah before he died. The Resurrection and other miracles: In Jesus' day there were lots of people who allegedly performed miracles. There were Jewish holy men such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the circle drawer. There were pagan holy men such as Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher who could allegedly heal the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead. He was allegedly supernaturally born and at the end of his life he allegedly ascended to heaven. Sound familiar? There were pagan demigods, such as Hercules, who could also bring back the dead. Anyone who is willing to believe in the miracles of Jesus need to concede the possibility of other people performing miracles, in Jesus' day and in all eras down to the present day and in other religions such as Islam and indigenous religions of Africa and Asia. Historians show what probably happened in the past, but miracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened. The chances of a miracle occurring are infinitesimal. If historians can only establish what probably happened, and miracles by their definition are the least probable occurrences, then more or less by definition, historians cannot establish that miracles have ever probably happened. They cannot show that a miracle, the least likely occurrence, is the most likely. This is true of the miracles of Mohammed, Hanina ben Dosa, Apollonius of Tyana -- and Jesus. What would be a more probable explanation for these events? Nearly any explanation you can think of that doesn't involve a miracle. Why did disciples claim to see Jesus alive? Here's an explanation that's more probable than a miracle: It's extremely well-documented that people sometimes have visions of their loved ones after they died. A man sees his wife in his bedroom a month after she was buried; a woman sees her dead daughter; a girl sees her dead grandmother. Happens all the time. In many instances the person having this experience can talk to the dead person, can give them a hug and feel them. There are documented instances of multiple people having some such visionary experience together, and not just visions of relatives. The blessed Virgin Mary appears to groups of people all the time --- there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Postmortem visionary experiences could've easily led to the idea of Jesus' resurrection. You claim a miracle is the likeliest event according to the Gospels. Do you really think that a miracle is a more likely explanation than a postmortem visionary experience? You think a miracle is more likely than a lie, a hallucination, or an intentional work of fiction? You must think people rise from the dead fairly often to have that kind of perspective. Believers believe that miracles happen. But they cannot believe them because of historical evidence. They take the Christian claims on faith, not on the basis of proof or of probability. There can be no proof. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition, miracles are the least probable of occurrences. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Likely Outcome Jesus' life is, in my view, a tale of a failed prophet. He believed in Apocalyptical events that would happen soon. To the dismay of the disciples and others of that "generation," none of it occurred, leading to reinterpretations of his message. Evolving doctrines began implying maybe Jesus was actually Messiah and God. Maybe Jesus wasn't really talking about this current generation. Maybe the Kingdom of God, which will rid the world of all evil, won't come soon after all. These reinterpretations, found in later manuscripts, were nothing that Jesus taught according to the earliest texts. Jesus likely felt extremely alone during his trial, and the account in Matthew of his crucifixion rings the truest. A man who thought he was a prophet sent by God to bring in God's Kingdom, to become a King over the Jewish nation, was instead to be put to death by pagans for a political nuance. He remains speechless, in shock from the betrayal by Judas and by the startling realization that his own apocalyptic doctrine wasn't to be fulfilled. Crowds and soldiers throw insults and lashes at him and he remains silent, brooding the entire way. The only words the failed prophet can speak at the end of his young life: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is a probable interpretation according to our earliest manuscripts. Ironically, I find this historical interpretation more moving and poignant than I ever used to find the devotional, mashed-up interpretation of Jesus when I was Christian. ----------------------------------------------------------- Probabilities In the end, the two of us are different in fundamental ways. I say accounts of Gospel miracles are false until proven otherwise. On the other hand, you say accounts of Gospel miracles are true unless proven otherwise. I am a skeptic who bases probabilities on the laws of science; you are a believer who gives all options equal probability, even when they violate natural law. Your faith in, and acceptance of, the supernatural provokes you into believing a miracle can happen just as easily as a complex lie or a mistaken hallucination. This is made obvious in your last reply: "But unless we have strong reason to believe that what a historian said isn't true (such as that it conflicts with what another historian said, or conflicts with geographical data, or is a bizarre claim), we generally believe it to be true." It seems you don't view miracles as a "bizarre claim" even though, by all accounts of what we can provably say about the world and about the laws of nature, they are as bizarre as you can get. Dan

I responded: "First, none of the authors actually claim in the text that he was an eyewitness to these events. This would obviously be important if the disciple himself had been writing it or influencing the text. Instead the Gospels read as if it's a collection of stories heard from someone else." That was the way texts were usually written in that day. Julius Caesar and Josephus witnessed some of the stuff they wrote about also, but still generally wrote about them in third-person, not first-person. "Secondly, if the authors were disciples, they wouldn't title their Gospels "The Gospel according to...." Think of it this way. If you saw a book titled "Politics According to Barack Obama" does it imply that Barack Obama wrote the book? Not at all, and in fact implies the opposite: that it's a book written by someone else concerning Obama's politics. Does it imply the author personally knows Barack Obama, or consulted with Barack Obama, or even has a positive view of Barack Obama? Again, not at all." And someone quoting from that book around the same time it was written wouldn't be saying "Obama said this" or "Obama said that", yet the early church fathers did, when quoting the books, say that "Mark said this" or "John said that". Therefore, the "according to"s were understood as authorship credits in that day. Besides, why would the "real" authors of Mark and Luke say that they were writing "according to" what Mark and Luke said, when Mark and Luke weren't eyewitnesses to those events? There is very little doubt, per the evidence, that Mark and Luke were the actual authors of those texts, Mark writing what Peter told him, and Luke being a general historian of the events, using multiple sources. All evidence says that Mark and Luke actually wrote their texts, so the fact that, in their case, there is an "according to" in the title clearly shows that this is to be taken as an authorship credit. "Thirdly, if Matthew or John were written by their accredited disciples, why are their stories and quotes of Jesus so different on so many levels? And at some points blatantly contradictory in theological message?" Because independant accounts of the same series of events always differ in details, since people remember things differently. Honestly, had the stories matched in all details, wouldn't you be using that as proof that the stories were based on a single account? The historical accounts of Caesar's assassination differ in certain areas, as well. We see it pretty much any time there are multiple historical accounts of the same series of events. "MATTHEW is written in the third person, about what "they" - Jesus and the disciples - were doing. Never what "we" were doing. Even the stories in Matt about Matthew becoming a disciple, it says "him" not "me." So is Josephus, when he talks about things he was a personal witness to, such as the seige on Jerusalem. He says things like "While Josephus was making this exhortation to the Jews..." and "Upon this, Josephus stood in such a place where he might be heard..." First-person was rare in texts of importance. Even Julius Caesar generally wrote about himself in third-person within his historical texts. "JOHN is obviously not written by a disciple, but the author claims the info came from a disciple. The Gospel ends with "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Translation: We (the narrator/writer) know that his (the disciple) testimony is true. A disciple did not write this Gospel." Huh? So even though that passage specifically says that the disciple "wrote them down", you're taking this as evidence that a disciple did *not* write them down? How does that make sense? "MARK, even if he was the author, he was said to be a companion of Peter. He wasn't a disciple. LUKE, even if he was the author, was a companion of Paul. Neither were disciples." The issue here is whether they wrote the texts credited to them, and all evidence says they did. "It is better to cut against the grain. If a tradition is changed by an author, it is so the tradition better conforms to their personal theology. Any tradition of Jesus that is dissimilar to what the early Christians would have likely wanted to say about him is more likely authentic." I don't disagree that something cutting against the grain implies truthfulness, but, unfortunately, I've seen many people try to argue that this means that something *not* cutting against the grain implies *untruthfulness*, which is obviously nonsense. Most of what Christianity teaches is obviously going to be in line with what Jesus said and did. "the story of Nicodemus being confused on the meaning of "from above" (John 19:11). Nicodemus, according to the story, gets confused on the Greek word for "from above" because it can also mean "born again" - Nic asks if he should crawl back in his mothers womb. However, Jesus didn't speak Greek and neither did Nic, so this confusion never would've happened in the first place when they were having a conversation in Aramaic. Thus we can say the story is fabricated by whoever wrote John." Actually, both Jesus and Nicodemus probably spoke Greek. It was the most common language in Rome in the day. Pilate almost certainly spoke Greek when addressing Jesus and the Jewish people in the area, so if they weren't fluent in it, how would they have understood him? It's true that Greek wasn't the native tongue for Jesus or Nicodemus, but they would have been conversant in Greek, and there's nothing unusual about two people who speak a second language conversing that language. "Why? Early Christians no doubt believed that Jesus IS the Son of Man, but in this passage, and others, Jesus makes no such implication. If you read these verses it sounds as if Jesus and the Son of Man are two different people." If you read them in a vacuum, perhaps. But there are other passages in which Jesus makes it clear that He *is* the "Son of Man" (see John 9:35-37, for example). Unless you're going to argue that "cutting with the grain implies untruthfulness", there is no doubt that Jesus considered Himself the Son of Man. "There is another very important dissimilarity which I won't quote fully here. Go read Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus says that those who do humanitarian works will go to Heaven, and those who don't will go to hell. Period. There is nothing else you need to do: no believing Jesus is God, no believing in a resurrection." Hardly. Jesus was simply making a point stressing the importance of helping the poor, of treating the worst-off in society the same way we would treat Jesus Himself. The point being made isn't about what one must do in order to be saved. Besides, do you think that Jesus was saying that if one person does only one humanitarian act in his entire life, but is a heartless monster for the rest of his life, he's still saved? Jesus is simply talking about the nature of people who are righteous, that they treat the poor with decency. "And importantly, why did Jesus want people to change their behavior? The reason to change your behavior was to gain entrance to the kingdom when it came. It was not in order to make society a happy place for the foreseeable future." Really? Considering that Jesus' commandments to His followers were mostly about loving their fellow man, showing mercy, forgiveness, charity, kindness, sympathy, etc. - I find it a bit bizarre to claim that Jesus asked people to change their behavior for no other reason than to improve things for themselves. "Jesus was widely believed to have done miracles. The miracles occur in multiple independent sources. The traditions cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity of course; storytellers in the early church naturally wanted the people they were trying to convert to understand that Jesus was not a mere mortal but was especially empowered by God." But more than that, they clearly believed it themselves. If so, why? If Jesus was not resurrected, then why did those closest to Jesus seem to believe that He was? Are you arguing that they knew He wasn't resurrected, and therefore had nothing to offer any of His followers, but went ahead and tried to convince people that believing in Jesus would grant them eternal life, knowing full well that all it would get them is persecution from Rome? I don't see evidence of such cruelty and deception in the New Testament writings. "There were pagan holy men such as Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher who could allegedly heal the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead. He was allegedly supernaturally born and at the end of his life he allegedly ascended to heaven. Sound familiar?" Sure. His story was, by all evidence, based on Jesus. His stories appear to date to the late 2nd century at the earliest. His biographer, Philostratus, wrote in the 3rd century. "Anyone who is willing to believe in the miracles of Jesus need to concede the possibility of other people performing miracles, in Jesus' day and in all eras down to the present day and in other religions such as Islam and indigenous religions of Africa and Asia." Yes, I concede the possibility of other people being miracle-workers. But I have yet to find any with the amount of evidence for their miracles as I do for Jesus. "Historians show what probably happened in the past, but miracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened." Not always. I agree that there is cause to be skeptical when it comes to claims of miracles, but when the "alternate explanations" have trouble explaining the facts, then there is cause to be skeptical of them, as well. That Jesus rose from the dead is an "extraordinary claim" and thus deserves more skepticism than more mundane claims. But the idea that all of those who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected suffered from a "mass delusion", or that all (or at least most) of the NT authors were knowingly lying about the resurrection, or that the Gospels were intended as fiction, but their audience (in the same century) somehow failed to grasp this fact, are also "extraordinary claims" and should be treated with skepticism as well. When we're dealing with opposing "extraordinary claims" with no "mundane claims" satisfying the issue, then we have to go with the "extraordinary claim" that best explains the evidence. "Why did disciples claim to see Jesus alive? Here's an explanation that's more probable than a miracle: It's extremely well-documented that people sometimes have visions of their loved ones after they died. A man sees his wife in his bedroom a month after she was buried; a woman sees her dead daughter; a girl sees her dead grandmother. Happens all the time. In many instances the person having this experience can talk to the dead person, can give them a hug and feel them. There are documented instances of multiple people having some such visionary experience together, and not just visions of relatives. The blessed Virgin Mary appears to groups of people all the time --- there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Postmortem visionary experiences could've easily led to the idea of Jesus' resurrection." Not in this case. For one thing, such visions tend to happen to people who are expecting them to happen. In the post-resurrection sightings, they clearly were not. Mary did not recognize Jesus at first. The apostles were astonished - they thought His death was the end of it all. Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection when he was first told about it - he clearly wasn't expecting to see Jesus. And such visions are usually momentary, but the Gospels describe Jesus being with them for many days, even eating with them, in broad daylight. Mass hallucination explaining the facts here isn't easy at all. "You claim a miracle is the likeliest event according to the Gospels. Do you really think that a miracle is a more likely explanation than a postmortem visionary experience?" In this case, yes. "You think a miracle is more likely than a lie, a hallucination, or an intentional work of fiction?" In this case, yes. Don't get me wrong, though. As a former atheist, I was skeptical of the claims of resurrection and treated them as such. But the claims of "hallucination", "lie", or "intentional work of fiction" don't add up, and don't explain what we have in this event. Not that they're impossible, but they are, in this case "extraordinary claims" that must compete with the "extraordinary claim" of Jesus being resurrected. I think it makes the most sense to go with the answer that best fits the evidence - which in this case, is the answer that Jesus really was resurrected. "Believers believe that miracles happen. But they cannot believe them because of historical evidence." That's only true if you believe that miracles are impossible. I don't. "Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition, miracles are the least probable of occurrences." By whose definition? "Jesus' life is, in my view, a tale of a failed prophet. He believed in Apocalyptical events that would happen soon. To the dismay of the disciples and others of that "generation," none of it occurred, leading to reinterpretations of his message. Evolving doctrines began implying maybe Jesus was actually Messiah and God. Maybe Jesus wasn't really talking about this current generation. Maybe the Kingdom of God, which will rid the world of all evil, won't come soon after all. These reinterpretations, found in later manuscripts, were nothing that Jesus taught according to the earliest texts." You're welcome to your view, but with most (if not all) of the NT texts being written in the same century in which Jesus lived, it's difficult to fathom doctrine evolving that much over such a short period. "In the end, the two of us are different in fundamental ways. I say accounts of Gospel miracles are false until proven otherwise. On the other hand, you say accounts of Gospel miracles are true unless proven otherwise. I am a skeptic who bases probabilities on the laws of science; you are a believer who gives all options equal probability, even when they violate natural law." No, I consider claims of miracles to be "extraordinary claims" and hold them to a higher standard than I do for "mundane claims". The problem here is that there is no "mundane" explanation for the NT texts. What we have are competing "extraordinary claims" which must be decided between. I find "it happened" to be the one which makes the most sense. "Your faith in, and acceptance of, the supernatural provokes you into believing a miracle can happen just as easily as a complex lie or a mistaken hallucination." That depends on the situation. I do believe in complex lies and hallucinations (heck, I experienced a hallucination myself one time, when I was very tired). In this event, though, "complex lie" and "hallucination" are very problematic explanations for the facts. "This is made obvious in your last reply: "But unless we have strong reason to believe that what a historian said isn't true (such as that it conflicts with what another historian said, or conflicts with geographical data, or is a bizarre claim), we generally believe it to be true." It seems you don't view miracles as a "bizarre claim" even though, by all accounts of what we can provably say about the world and about the laws of nature, they are as bizarre as you can get." I do view miracles as "bizarre", or at least "extraordinary" claims, and hold them to a different standard. But there is no "mundane claim" that nicely explains the facts surrounding the events here. Had Jesus appeared very briefly to only one or two people during a time that they were expecting Him to appear, then I'd say that "hallucination" would be a much better explanation than bodily resurrection. Had only one or two people claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus, and everyone else simply took their word for it, then I'd find it believable that maybe those one or two people were lying. But as it is, there is no theory regarding the claims surrounding Jesus' resurrection that don't defy some kind of logic. For those who believe that miracles are possible, miracles are an option that must be considered. For those who believe that miracles are impossible and cannot happen, then I certainly understand them being drawn towards a different explanation, no matter how unlikely that explanation is. Personally, I accept that miracles are possible, so I have to consider that possibility here, and I find that it's the possibility which best explains the evidence. The other options simply try to "explain away" the evidence, and fail to do so. David 2/3/10

Go to Page 4