philologus
Subgenius
Sorry, work kept me busy this morning, and I could not respond until now. I can tell you that 45 minutes of straight typing has given me CTS. 
Originally posted by vincegamer
First off, just as a minor detail, \"written by\" is not supported by any physical evidence. The dates assigned to the origins of the gospels are all after the reasonable lifetimes of the authors. However, the same can be said of Homer. He certainly is credited with creating the story even if he himself didn\'t write it down. So, we can easily credit mmlj with their books even though in all likelihood they were verbal and later written down by followers.
It is supported by historical events in a significant manner, I will explain individually: The Gospel of Matthew is attributed to the apostle Matthew by the 1st and 2nd century church fathers, most notably Iranaeus (ca. AD 180). Matthew was a direct eye-witness to the events of Christ\'s earthly ministry.
Mark was not an eye-witness to the events of Christ’s life. Mark was a disciple of Peter and would have written what Peter recounted about his time with Christ. Many believe Mark to have been the first Gospel written, estimates range from AD 55 to AD 70.
From the account itself John seems to have been written by an eye-witness to the gospel events. John’s primary focus is the spiritual implications of Christ’s teachings. John’s was probably the last account written. The oldest fragment of John is from a papyrus dated circa 135 and found in Egypt. It would have taken some time for it to circulate to Egypt. Some scholars place John in the 80’s but usually not earlier.
Luke the Physician was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. Both Paul and Luke were not direct eye-witnesses to Christ’s ministry. They both would have had the opportunity during Paul’s travels to talk directly with Jesus’ apostles and ancillary followers. As a gentile convert (not well-versed in Hebrew tradition) and as a physician (educated) Luke would likely have been motivated by the desire to gather the facts for future readers. Luke was also the author of Acts. Acts is an important history of the early church after Christ’s ascension.
The important thing about all 4 of these Gospels is that NONE mention the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem which occurred in 70 AD (verified historically and archaeologically by extra-biblical sources) or the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64 AD. Neither does Acts mention these significant events. The opening verses of Acts state by Luke how he had previously written his gospel. He speaks to one Theophilus (Loves God) who it appears was his patron. This means Acts was written after Luke. Since none of these books mentions the destruction of the Temple we can assume that they were written before AD 70. This is important because Christ predicted that the temple would be destroyed:
\"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down,\" Luke 21:5
This was also predicted by Christ in Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1. If the disciples and gospel writers were trying to foist a fraud upon the world wouldn’t they attempt to record the historical event that validated Christ’s prophecy? Note Christ’s words, “there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down. Historically the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70 and tore apart every block to remove any of the gold or precious metals adorning them. This seems like a perfect opportunity to validate their creed with a fulfillment of prophecy, it is conspicuously absent from the gospel narrative and from Acts. So while the earliest Papyri fragments exist from the 1st half of the 2nd century (a mere 50 years from the time of their writing) there is reasonable support for their having been written by and at the correct time the authors attested.
I’m delighted that you mentioned Homer. As near as I can tell, there are about 640 manuscript copies of Homer’s Iliad with 764 lines of disputed text. This compares to about 40 lines of disputed text in ALL of the NT. We have about 25,000 manuscripts with about 5600 in the original Greek. The oldest of which are (by conservative, i.e. minimalist, estimates of 80-100 years gap between the original autographs and the manuscripts) Compare this with several hundred years difference gap in Homer. As for the OT; the differences in the textual traditions of the three major branches of the Jewish Diaspora, (Yemenite, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi) yield a difference of 8-11 letters, not lines. To put that in perspective with much later manuscript evidence, not one of Shakespeare’s original plays exists in its entirety. That was just 400 years ago.
Okay, that aside, I\'ll just toss out a few biblical contradictions. There are so many I obviously can\'t list them all.
(oh, and of course which books do you consider literal, since different sects of christianity use different books, not to mention the historical changes).
Which came first, the human or the beast?
Genesis 1:25-27
Genesis 2:18-19
This is one of those that I get asked a lot by recreational bible readers. The Genesis account in Chapter 1 is chronological as is evidenced by the repeated “and the morning and the evening were the first day…” etc. Chapter 2 is not a chronological account but a further explanation, a zoom-in if you will, of what has already been related. This is another instance of seeing one tree and not the forest. The information is embedded in the narrative. In chapter 2 we are shown a detailed narrative about the man, God’s most singular creation. Gen. 2:3 denotes the end of the previous narrative and the beginning of this detailed account. The verses you allude to don’t mean that the animals were created after Adam, just that they were brought to Adam to name after Adam was created. The fact that Adam names the animals provides a counterpoint to what is introduced next: That the animals weren’t adequate companions for Adam. He was acquainted with them and gave them their names but only woman could satisfy the loneliness of the man.
Who was Abijam\'s mother?
1 Kings 15:1-2
2 Chronicles 13:1-2
Maacah was the king’s mother. The difference between Maacah and Machaiah is a bit like the difference between Stacey and Stacy. The latter (a transliteration of the original name) comes from the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Tanakh, while the former is the original Hebrew.
Shoes or no shoes?
Matthew 10:10
Mark 6:8-9
This changes neither the message or the intent. The fact that the lists are so similar between one who was an eye-witness and one who was not demonstrates the care taken with the re-telling. The lists given were examples for reinforcement and not actual legal proscriptions against what should be bought or sold.
Thaddeus or Judas?
Matthew 10:2-4
Mark 3:16-19
Luke 6:14-16
Acts 1:13
This one is easy. Throughout ancient documents and throughout the biblical text individuals have more than one name. When two individuals with the same common name are given then typically the writer distinguishes them. In this case Matthew and Mark agree (even non-believers agree they were likely the first 2 accounts written, so it is not unusual that they would have the same appellation) while Luke and John agree. The point here was to distinguish Judas brother of James from Judas Iscariot the traitor (for obvious reasons) Peter is called also Cephas and Simon. Matthew is also called Levi by virtue of his birth. Many people are named by their lineage, i.e. Bartholomew= Bar tol’amu son of Tol’amu. Thomas is known as Didymus, “the Twin”. In this part of the ancient world you had individuals speaking Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin in very close proximity to each other and by virtue of the cosmopolitan nature of the Roman Empire at the time. It would not be uncommon for people to be known by each linguistic variant of their name. While I lived in Korea I was addressed variously as David, by my fellow English Speakers and alternately Da’weet or Dae’bit by different natives, yet I was still Morris the son of Wayne. And also Alan whose surname was Morris. And yet I might have been referred to as Dave the Illinoisan to distinguish me from EvilDave the Lousianan, or simply as Dave the American. I might also add that Egyptian Pharaohs had 5 names, none were used together (some exceptions) and yet we distinguish between them and accept the regnal naming as part of their culture.
And how do you square inconsistencies with the archeological and historical evidence?
-Jesus was born during Herod\'s reign, but the census took place about 10 years after the death of Herod.
My understanding of this debate is that the account of Luke differs from that of Josephus (the main contradictory text) But there are several instances when Josephus has been shown incorrect in details (notably the Masada account, although he was correct about the ramp). Josephus was also Jewish and did not have much interest in validating the Christian Church. There are however many examples of the bible being highly accurate. All of the foreign kings mentioned in the bible have been verified archaeologically, as have the vast majority of the cities. Modern scientists didn’t believe there were a Hittite people and used them as an example of the bible’s inaccuracy, until the Hittite civilization was discovered right where the bible placed it. I had the great good fortune to attend a symposium between Dr. Hoffmeier (a maximalist) and Dr. Redding (a minimalist, both Egyptologists) on the use of the biblical text as a historical document. One of the interesting points made by Hoffmeier is that no other ancient text has produced the number of verifiable historical facts as the bible, and yet a much more rigorous standard of textual criticism is consistently applied to it than any other text.
-Archaeological evidence shows that Bethlehem did not exist at the time of Jesus\' birth.
I don’t know where this comes from. As far as I know, the earliest mention of Bethlehem comes from the Tel-el-Amarna letters (14th century BC) which mention a town south of Jerusalem known as Bit Ilu Lahama (in Hebrew Beth Lechem or Beis Lechem, “the House of Bread”). The Egyptian correspondence relates how the town had fallen to the Habiru or Kabiru people (Hebrews). There are many more extra-biblical citations all the way up to the time of Christ’s crucifixion and indeed Bethlehem is currently under Palestinian control. So it seems that Bethlehem has an uninterrupted history almost as old as civilization itself.
That\'s enough of a start.
