Ignorance and the Bible

[Cypress]

Nope. Nobody knows who wrote those gospels. Since nobody knows who they were, then nobody knows who they knew, heard, saw or talked to.

When I was flirting with atheism, I really wanted to debunk Christianity too. I wanted to believe the Gospels were frauds, their authorship was fallacious, the resurrection accounts were later fabrications invented out of whole cloth.

After a sincere investigation over many years, I realized those beliefs really couldn't stand up to scrutiny.


You're just making an assertion about authorship , without supporting it with logical deduction.

Nobody can prove who wrote the Gospels.

What we can do is make logical inferences

I gave you multiple lines of evidence and the testimony of a first century Bishop that at least the three synoptic Gospels can reasonably be inferred to be attributable to Matthew, to Peter's secretary Mark, and to Paul's companion Luke

 

[gmark77]

When I was flirting with atheism, I really wanted to debunk Christianity too. I wanted to believe the Gospels were frauds, their authorship was fallacious, the resurrection accounts were later fabrications invented out of whole cloth.

Again, why do you assume atheists think they were "frauds"?

Are you pathologically incapable of not demonizing other points of view?

 

[domer76]

What I've heard Ehrman say in the multiple podcasts and lectures I've seen him in is that he as a historian is not going to make a claim about seemingly miraculous events, but that it appears the apostles themselves believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

Whether it was because of hallucination, miracle, or mistaken identity, Ehrman is agnostic and doesn't put forth a truth claim about it.

I've never heard him say the apostles conspired to lie about the resurrection.

That's good impartial historical scholarship

Neither have I.

 

[domer76]

When I was flirting with atheism, I really wanted to debunk Christianity too. I wanted to believe the Gospels were frauds, their authorship was fallacious, the resurrection accounts were later fabrications invented out of whole cloth.

After a sincere investigation over many years, I realized those beliefs really couldn't stand up to scrutiny.


You're just making an assertion about authorship , without supporting it with logical deduction.

Nobody can prove who wrote the Gospels.

What we can do is make logical inferences

I gave you multiple lines of evidence and the testimony of a first century Bishop that at least the three synoptic Gospels can reasonably be inferred to be attributable to Matthew, to Peter's secretary Mark, and to Paul's companion Luke

I never said the Gospels were fraud. They merely were not written by Luke, Mark, Matthew or John. Nobody knows who wrote them and only approximately when.

Not one source from any Biblical scholar I’ve read says anything about “reasonably be inferred”.

These apostles came from an area that was overwhelmingly uneducated and illiterate. They were simply incapable of writing those gospels in their own language, much less Greek.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I never said the Gospels were fraud. They merely were not written by Luke, Mark, Matthew or John. Nobody knows who wrote them and only approximately when.

Not one source from any Biblical scholar I’ve read says anything about “reasonably be inferred”.

These apostles came from an area that was overwhelmingly uneducated and illiterate. They were simply incapable of writing those gospels in their own language, much less Greek.

The expression, "I do not know for sure who wrote...blah, blah, blah" would not be reasonable interpreted as, "I am stupid."

Stop being so fucking afraid to acknowledge that you do not know things...like whether the people who wrote those gospels were intellectually capable of writing stuff that you blindly guess to be beyond their capabilities.
YOU do not know who wrote the gospels. To eliminate Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John because you (or the Biblical scholars you have read) deem them as incapable...is as illogical as insisting that THEY WERE WRITTING BY THOSE PEOPLE.

Take that first step toward truth. That when speaking of these matters..."I do not know" is almost always the strongest response.

 

[gmark77]

."I do not know" is almost always the strongest response.

If only you could understand your own advice.

 

[domer76]

The expression, "I do not know for sure who wrote...blah, blah, blah" would not be reasonable interpreted as, "I am stupid."

Stop being so fucking afraid to acknowledge that you do not know things...like whether the people who wrote those gospels were intellectually capable of writing stuff that you blindly guess to be beyond their capabilities.
YOU do not know who wrote the gospels. To eliminate Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John because you (or the Biblical scholars you have read) deem them as incapable...is as illogical as insisting that THEY WERE WRITTING BY THOSE PEOPLE.

Take that first step toward truth. That when speaking of these matters..."I do not know" is almost always the strongest response.

The people who wrote the Gospels decades after the death of Jesus, were NOT those with the names attached. Every Biblical scholar knows that. They were anonymous.

People from Galilee at that time were overwhelmingly illiterate with MAYBE a 3-5% literacy rate. Even being somewhat literate does not mean one had the wherewithal to write a gospel. In Greek, no less. I work with many people who are considered literate, but there’s no fucking way they could author a reasonably literate short story.

Try to fucking educate yourself before spouting off, Frank.

 

[Cypress]

I never said the Gospels were fraud. They merely were not written by Luke, Mark, Matthew or John. Nobody knows who wrote them and only approximately when.

Obviously no one can prove shit about the authorship of the gospels.

What we can do is look at evidence and make inferences.

You have provided no previous rationale for believing the authorship of the gospels are fraudulent. It's definitely possible, but up until now you haven't made the case.

I've given multiple lines of evidence. Even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman says we have to take seriously Bishop Pappas' report that two of the canonical gospels are attributable to Matthew and Mark, although we can't know for sure.

Not one source from any Biblical scholar I’ve read says anything about “reasonably be inferred”.

I am doing my own logical inference based on what I've read from reputable scholars.

These apostles came from an area that was overwhelmingly uneducated and illiterate. They were simply incapable of writing those gospels in their own language, much less Greek.

People who read the elegant prose in the King James Bible are quick to leap to the conclusion that obscure citizens of the Roman Empire couldn't write that eloquently.

The NT authors wrote in a simple and basic Koine Greek. Later transistors stylized the language into fancy Elizabethean English.

Luke was a Greek speaking gentile, and supposedly a doctor.

Matthew was a tax collector.

Mark seems to have been a Hellenized Jew who wasn't from Palestine. It's in the realm of possibility he could have composed his testimony in Aramaic which was later translated and edited into Koine Greek.

Jesus was a Rabbi who undoubtedly had some education in reading Hebrew.

It's an assumption that these were all illiterate peasants, although that is definitely possible. And I am almost certain a fisherman like Peter was illiterate.


Wrapping up, there would be nothing to stop John or Matthew telling their testimony to Hellenistic Jews who could write Greek. That area of the world was deeply Hellenized.

 

[gmark77]

Obviously no one can prove shit about the authorship of the gospels.

What we can do is look at evidence and make inferences.

You have provided no previous rationale for believing the authorship of the gospels are fraudulent. It's definitely possible, but up until now you haven't made the case.

I've given multiple lines of evidence. Even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman says we have to take seriously Bishop Pappas' report that two of the canonical gospels are attributable to Matthew and Mark, although we can't know for sure.


I am doing my own logical inference based on what I've read from reputable scholars.


People who read the elegant prose in the King James Bible are quick to leap to the conclusion that obscure citizens of the Roman Empire couldn't write that eloquently.

The NT authors wrote in a simple and basic Koine Greek. Later transistors stylized the language into Elizabethean English.

Luke was a Greek speaking gentile, and supposedly a doctor.

Matthew was a tax collector.

Mark seems to have been a Belle mixed Jew who wasn't from Palestine. It's in the realm of possibility he could have composed his testimony in Aramaic which was later translated and edited into Koine Greek.

Jesus was a Rabbi who undoubtedly had some education in reading Hebrew.

It's an assumption that these were all illiterate peasants, although that is definitely possible. And I am almost certain a fisherman like Peter was illiterate.


Wrapping up, there would be nothing to stop John or Matthew telling their testimony to Hellenistic Jews who could write Greek. That area of the world was deeply Hellenized.

Why do you need the Gospels to be written by the nominal authors?

For an agnostic you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing in the weeds.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If only you could understand your own advice.

I do.

You pretending you can show that I do not...but never getting to it...is hilarious.

Thanks for the delight.

 

[domer76]

Obviously no one can prove shit about the authorship of the gospels.

What we can do is look at evidence and make inferences.

You have provided no previous rationale for believing the authorship of the gospels are fraudulent. It's definitely possible, but up until now you haven't made the case.

I've given multiple lines of evidence. Even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman says we have to take seriously Bishop Pappas' report that two of the canonical gospels are attributable to Matthew and Mark, although we can't know for sure.


I am doing my own logical inference based on what I've read from reputable scholars.


People who read the elegant prose in the King James Bible are quick to leap to the conclusion that obscure citizens of the Roman Empire couldn't write that eloquently.

The NT authors wrote in a simple and basic Koine Greek. Later transistors stylized the language into fancy Elizabethean English.

Luke was a Greek speaking gentile, and supposedly a doctor.

Matthew was a tax collector.

Mark seems to have been a Hellenized Jew who wasn't from Palestine. It's in the realm of possibility he could have composed his testimony in Aramaic which was later translated and edited into Koine Greek.

Jesus was a Rabbi who undoubtedly had some education in reading Hebrew.

It's an assumption that these were all illiterate peasants, although that is definitely possible. And I am almost certain a fisherman like Peter was illiterate.


Wrapping up, there would be nothing to stop John or Matthew telling their testimony to Hellenistic Jews who could write Greek. That area of the world was deeply Hellenized.

You know who were “doctors” at that time? Slaves. There was no fucking med school. Know what Galilean tax collectors did? They were the strong arms. And perhaps they sat at a table to witness peoples mark.

King James was written by dozens of commissioned scholars, not someone who wandered in off the street.

It’s amazing to me how you can be so consistently and chronically off the mark on these things.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The people who wrote the Gospels decades after the death of Jesus, were NOT those with the names attached. Every Biblical scholar knows that. They were anonymous.

Yeah...they were anonymous. But if they were...why are you excluding that they may have been people with those names...or Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek counterparts of those names.

If you are saying that scholarly work indicates very strongly that they were not written by the apostles...ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

Scholars are fairly certain that the epistles (letters) of Paul...were written by Paul.

People from Galilee at that time were overwhelmingly illiterate with MAYBE a 3-5% literacy rate.

Okay, let us take that as gospel...although I see you spouting statistics of which I suspect are between 36.7% and 48.3% correct. (Statistics are often made up on the spot.)

Even being somewhat literate does not mean one had the wherewithal to write a gospel.

Nor does it mean one could not have the literary wherewithal TO WRITE a gospel...or part of one.

In Greek, no less.

We fucking do not know, Domer. They may have originally been written or otherwise authored in some language in which the apostles were literate. As has been mentioned, often these kinds of stories originate in oral form...and are later attributed by whomever finally writes them to someone.

John Kennedy was shot and killed in the midst of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people with video taping of the event...and we still are not positive of who "authored" the shooting.

There is no fucking way anyone can say with the authority you are using what could or could not be the case...any more than anyone can say with authority what the REALITY of existence is.

I work with many people who are considered literate, but there’s no fucking way they could author a reasonably literate short story.

That is so interesting. So because of that...you are able to make a meaningful conclusion about authorship of material from 2000 years ago?

My guess is: No way.

Try to fucking educate yourself before spouting off, Frank.

Take you own advice, Domer. Stop pontificating where you obviously have no right to do so.

 

[gmark77]

Yeah...they were anonymous. But if they were...why are you excluding that they may have been people with those names...or Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek counterparts of those names.

Let's see what Cy's favorite biblical scholar says:

"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John.

Here are some factors to consider. First, the titles almost certainly cannot be what the authors themselves called their works. It is widely thought among critical scholars that Mark did give a kind of descriptive title to his work, in what is now the first verse: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is probably not simply an introduction to what is to follow. It may well be Mark’s own title. Notice that his own name (whatever it was) is left out of it."

Scholars are fairly certain that the epistles (letters) of Paul...were written by Paul.

Actually only seven of Paul's letters are thought by scholars to have been written by Paul. Several of them are "pseudepigraphical". Written by others ostensibly as Paul. Three more remain in question.

 

[Cypress]

For an agnostic you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing in the weeds.

I'm making the case that one doesn't have to be a barely sentient irrational fool to think there evidence the gospel authors are legitimate. We will never know for sure. There is still debate about it.

On this message board, it is consistently atheists who are dogmatic and triggered about this, and make truth claims that they know for certain the gospel authors are totally anonymous and are nothing but avatars.

 

[gmark77]

Okay, let us take that as gospel...although I see you spouting statistics of which I suspect are between 36.7% and 48.3% correct. (Statistics are often made up on the spot.)


Nor does it mean one could not have the literary wherewithal TO WRITE a gospel...or part of one.

Let us turn to the holy scripture of esteemed Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman again:

"Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than 50 people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1%. When this figure is tied to the fact that the land of Israel was 70% rural, and only 10% was “highly” urban, one can take into account all the sundry factors and crunch the numbers: “it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel… was probably less than 3%.” Most of this 3% would have comprised wealthy Jews living in the major cities."

 

[gmark77]

I'm making the case that one doesn't have to be a barely sentient irrational fool to think there evidence the gospel authors are legitimate.

Are they "legitimate" when they describe a man raising another man from the dead? How about when that man turned water into wine? How about walking on water?

So in your erudition you cherry pick those things which you like.

When someone says the story of the empty tomb could just be made up and fictional you disagree. But when someone asks you about the following story where Jesus flies up into heaven you suddenly never have an opinion.

You run away from the point fast.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Let's see what Cy's favorite biblical scholar says:

"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John.

Here are some factors to consider. First, the titles almost certainly cannot be what the authors themselves called their works. It is widely thought among critical scholars that Mark did give a kind of descriptive title to his work, in what is now the first verse: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is probably not simply an introduction to what is to follow. It may well be Mark’s own title. Notice that his own name (whatever it was) is left out of it."

So????

Are you saying that any of that contradicts what I wrote?

What exactly?

Actually only seven of Paul's letters are thought by scholars to have been written by Paul. Several of them are "pseudepigraphical". Written by others ostensibly as Paul. Three more remain in question.

All of the most important ones to Christianity today (particularly Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans)...are judged to be authentic. (They may not be...just as the words of Jesus are heatedly disputed by the Jesus Seminar scholars.)

You are correct, though, that some of the letters of Paul are disputed as to authorship. My personal feelings are that if Philemon is accepted as authentic, then Titus (one of the disputed) ought to be also. This is heavy lifting...and I have written lots about it in the past. I accept the correction you made. I over-stated my case. Discussing this at length would detract from the discussion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Let us turn to the holy scripture of esteemed Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman again:

"Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than 50 people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1%. When this figure is tied to the fact that the land of Israel was 70% rural, and only 10% was “highly” urban, one can take into account all the sundry factors and crunch the numbers: “it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel… was probably less than 3%.” Most of this 3% would have comprised wealthy Jews living in the major cities."

Why should I accept the guesses of this guy? Because you do?

 

[gmark77]

Why should I accept the guesses of this guy? Because you do?

Just pointing out that the statistic was not just "made up".

But I understand. You've been shown to be a fool and you feel bad so you lash out.




(Also: don't let Cy hear you denigrating the holy word of Esteemed Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman!)

 

[Hume]

If you 'knew this stuff', why do you deny 'this stuff', Hugo????

go kill yourself