Jump to content

Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Cyberbot II has detected links on Historical reliability of the Gospels which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Failure to cite reliable sources

The sources added on 24 October 2016 are either self-published or nonacademic or they fail WP:FRINGE or they fail WP:UNDUE. The majority opinion of Bible scholars is that the NT gospels are anonymous and falsely attributed. So this view has to receive most space and be given most relevance inside our article. Minority views should explicitly be attributed to scholarly minorities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the majority view has to get the "most space" relatively to minority views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical reliability of the Gospels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Historical reliability of the Gospels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Luke-Acts dating is horribly wrong

60-90 is just bizarre, especially given this page's good dating of Mark (relative to other Wikipedia pages) as necessarily in or after 70. Since Luke definitely uses Mark, it's clearly written after Mark (so no earlier than 70).

Further, Luke-Acts is almost certainly not even that early. Acts definitively uses Josephus as a source, placing it no earlier than 93. So 90 as a latest date isn't even theoretically tenable - the earliest possible date is later than that.

Someone with a good grasp of the scholarly literature needs to update the dating of Luke-Acts to something plausible.

(I might also suggest that the dating for John that this page gives is also super-early compared to scholarly estimates I've seen, which generally look more like 90-110, or even later). --2602:306:CFEA:E360:987C:301:C455:C8EE (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the John date-range, to that, matching the range in the gospel article, & using their ref. Someone should look at Luke-Acts. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Done Luke-Acts too: "Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD." Your position re 93 seems rather over-emphatic. Thanks for pointing these out. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous

"the gospels were not anonymous" is WP:FRINGE, according to WP:CHOPSY.

Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.

— T. Bill, Amazon.com

A review of Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony states "The common wisdom in the academy is that stories and sayings of Jesus circulated for decades, undergoing countless retellings and embellishments before being finally set down in writing." See Hahn, Scott W.; Scott, David, eds. (1 September 2007). Letter & Spirit, Volume 3: The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Christ, Kingdom, and Creation. Emmaus Road Publishing. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-931018-46-3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible.

What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

— religio criticus, Amazon.com

Quote by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added an extensive quotation from Ehrman's OUP book. Pitre and Ehrman are simply not in the same league, so Ehrman trumps Pitre over and over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Five criteria for historical reliability

The five criteria do not apply to the Gospels en toto, but to elements of it. Establishing the Gospels’ Reliability:

"Notice that these “criteria” do not presuppose the general reliability of the Gospels. Rather they focus on a particular saying or event and give evidence for thinking that specific element of Jesus’ life to be historical, regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular saying or event is reported.

So, the sentence in the lead was obviously wrong. The original addition was here, giving E. P. Sanders (1993), The historical figure of Jesus, Penguin, as the source. I doubt it that Sanders stated that "all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Guess what? Sanders' book doesn't even use the phrase "five criteria." What comes close is the following:

Scholars have developed various devices to try to determine which sayings and actions are 'authentic', that is, to distinguish newly created material from material that actually goes back to the lifetime of Jesus. I shall not describe these here, but some of them will appear in subsequent chapters.

Incorrect indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Various sources linked above are not considered reliable, I think. But it's a good point: the text may not be properly summarizing the existing citations. —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nativity narratives

I have just reverted an editor who wishes to include a sentence to the effect that "some scholars" believe the two nativity narratives can be harmonised. Two sources are cited, Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982) and F.F. Bruce's "New Testament Documents" (1943, repinted 2003). Both these authors, of course are well-known for taking an inerrantist approach to the biblical text, but this does not mean they should be dismissed - they could conceivably be correct, and both are highly qualified as scholars.
The problem, then, is not related to reliable sourcing, but with the scholarly consensus. The consensus, for example, is that the virgin birth "rests on a very slim historical foundation" - that's from a book published in 2004, by a scholar (F.D. Bruner) who personally feels the opposite, but is honest and impartial enough to recognise the fact.
I believe it would be better to drop the current section, which is focused on inconsistencies, and concentrate instead on the scholarly consensus on each pericope - the genealogies, the nativity narratives, etc. This, I think, would produce clearer results.Achar Sva (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that these scholars are legitimate and that the sources are reliable, but I think that dealing with issues of consensus is easy. Rewording to something like "Few scholars like .... have proposed that the narrative can be harmonized." or something like that would reflect the situation rather than eliminating relevant voices on a controversial topic. That would be an attribution thing which is perfectly valid in an encyclopedia like wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
We can only say "few scholars..." (or many, or most) if we have a source saying exactly that. Without knowing this, we invite editors to simply add more and more of their favourite authors in order to bolster their point, but without ever proving it.Achar Sva (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are WP:WEASEL words. I didn't edit that, but a big, red flag went up when I read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to merely discuss a head count of people who have a particular view. There has to be discussion of the actual views held and alternative views too. Considering the nature of the article is certainly has space to discuss the ACTUAL orthodox and unorthodox views such as harmonization of narratives or lack thereof. The reality is that almost no sources make claims about how many scholars favor one view or another, but some sources get into the arguments for and against particular views. So focusing on head count is not really a good metric to use on this type of article. From the recent edits, it clearly is shutting off the voices of legitimate scholars who actually have traditional views and it ignores their rational for holding such views. Certainly there are many lines of evidence to believe and disbelieve in harmonization for instance - and wikipedia is not the place to privilege one over the other. The scope of the article is about what are the different scholarly views of reliability or lack thereof that are available, not how many scholars have one view. The reason why there is generally is no consensus among historians on any ancient topic or person whether it be on Socrates or Pythagoras or Julius Caesar is because most historians merely interpret limited sources along with their personal gut feeling on the topics or person.
User:Achar Sva, Your source above said "rests on a very slim historical foundation"" not that most scholars hold this view. You are using the view of one author who did not make a claim about consensus and then saying that most scholars believe this. It is not the source saying a head count it is a wikipedia editor making that jump. The source just makes an argument and nothing more.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The source does say that this is the consensus of scholarship.
However, I'm not making an argument about one specific point like this. I'm saying we need a bettr way of organising the article, namely by looking at the various pericopes. Off the top of my head, the pericopes go something like:
* Pre-existence of Jesus as Christ (found only in John)
* Infancy/childhood narratives, including genealogies (found only in Matthew and Luke)
* Ministry, including parables/miracles and sayings, the latter found only or predominantly in Matthew and Luke
* Passion narrative (events in Jerusalem, crucifixion, empty tomb - found in all gospels)
* Post-resurrection narratives (found only in Matthew, Luke and John)
* Christological material
I'm suggesting it would be more productive to use a framework like this (which I stress is not complete or diagnostic) rather than looking at "discrepancies", which, frankly, I find a juvenile way of approaching the text. I also recommend the table in the article Gospel harmony - I think History2007 may have written it, and I respect him greatly.Achar Sva (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Your source F.D. Bruner, states that the scholarly consensus is "not proven" and "rests on a very slim historical foundation", not that it is "unhistorical". Clearly this is controversial point and one should not expect universal agreement on such matters, as is the case on numerous issues on Socrates, Pythagoras, and Julius Caesar. Scholars rarely ever have any agreement on anything. F.D. Bruner himself argues that it is better to understand the virgin birth as having some historical basis. One can seek and find books making claims about consensus, which ultimately does not help out since the article is about elaborating different viewpoints on the topic than a head count of scholars (all of which have their modern biases on ancient cultures). The more blunt fact is that scholars are divided on nearly all of the issues in the Gospels (as others are on the Pythagorean corpus or the works on Socrates), but have some solid agreement of a few major points like Jesus existing, being crucified by Pilate, living in Israel, etc.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No, Bruner does not say that the scholarly consensus is not proven; he says "the modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on a very slim historical foundation." When he uses the phrase "not proven" he's referring to the same consensus regarding the birth, i.e. that it's not proven. As the topic of the article is the historical reliability of the gospels, this is important. Achar Sva (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, that is not the same as saying unreliable. Essentially the is arguing that there is some historical footing, but not as much - and this is expected since scholars in general have varying views on the topic depending on their views on Christ as man or not, like Bruner says in the fist part of the commentary in that same page. But instead of focusing on head count of scholars (and unreliable metric), one should look at the scholarly arguments themselves for various positions. The scope of the article is about the arguments for reliability or lack thereof. This is the focus of it. When readers come to look at the page that is what they are interested in. What are the views for supporting the verisimilitude of of a passage and and are there any against. Of course Christian voices are very relevant since they technically have thousands of years of views on each part of the Gospels.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No, the scope of the article is not arguments for (or against) historical reliability, it's about scholarly opinion. Bruner says the scholarly consensus is that that the virgin birth has very slender historical reliability.Achar Sva (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, the scope of the article is on the diverse views held by scholars from all persuasions on the reliability of the Gospels. The flesh and bones of the article is about the arguments for verisimilitude or lack thereof on parts of the Gospels.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The scope of the article is the historical reliability of the gospels. We approach that by stating the opinions (points of view) of scholars. According to Bruner, the consensus of scholarly opinion on the historical reliability of the virgin birth is that it is not, in fact, historically reliable. We need to state that. We can also say why scholars hold this view.Achar Sva (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The source says much more than what you keep on highlighting from the source. In fact is gets into many detailed arguments as to why scholars also support the opposite and variations of degree within the spectrum. Furthermore, the source does not claim it is "unreliable". It never says that and the author argues against that in the next few pages. Slim historical foundation and no historical foundation are two separate things to say. More like agnosticism than disbelief at best if you read the explanations for "slim historical foundation" and "not proven". Ramos1990 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
If "slim historical foundation" is the phrase used by the source, then that's the phrase we have to use - we're not justified parsing that into "unreliable," "not proven," "proven," or anything else. Bruner's own objection to the consensus is not relevant, it's the consensus that we have to note. We could possibly note the reason/s for it, but bear in mind that the VB is just one tiny details from the gospels - we can't go into that sort of depth for every miracle, etc etc.Achar Sva (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed on the use of the words from the source. Jumping into "unreliable" like you did was what I was objecting too since that is a wiki editor's opinion, not the source's nuanced claim. We also have to mention other opinions on the issue, but that can be done in brief too in a section. The diverse opinions in the source are definitely relevant because one cannot cherry pick one sentence when other relevant views are also being discussed by that source. Context matters a lot. Otherwise it misrepresents the source. The goal is to capture the diverse views of scholars and some of the differences for readers. They can ultimately weigh the claims themselves, not us.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Apostolic (traditional) authorship of the Gospels

Walter Görlitz has just reversed an edit of mine and asked that I take it to Talk. So here I am.

The edit concerns the question of whether the majority opinion of scholars is that the four gospels are not by the traditional authors, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The paragraph in question begins: "In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John;" the first sentence is very badly sourced (no page number, gives the editor of an ancyclopedia instead of the article as author), but apparently means to base itself on this sentence on page 887: "to most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has there seemed unlikely..." For the "therefore", see the article). I think it's clear therefore that that the consensus of scholarship is that John is not by the apostolic author, with those who hold otherwise constituting a minority position. The minority position is in fact so much a minority as to fail to meet the threshold of notability, and the same is true for apostoilic authorship of the other three:

On this basis, it would be dishonest for us to give the impression in our article that traditional authorship is has any real support in modern scholarship. It was for this reason that I deleted the statement that "opinion is widely divided on the issue" - it clearly is not. The entire paragraph should be replaced with the bullet-points above.Achar Sva (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, in secular universities and mainline Protestant and Catholic seminaries there is no controversy about the anonymity of the gospels. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, of the two sources given in the article to support that statement that "opinion is widely divided," Raymond Brown, and Peter Kirby, Kirby is a website and therefore inadmissible as a source, and Brown says no such thing.Achar Sva (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
However, the reason given for removal is not the one provided here. The actual reason was "Brown is too old a source, and Kirby is a website and not reliable source." So first, old sources are not unreliable, but if newer scholarship has come to light, then WP:BALANCE may be provided. If the opinion is WP:UNDUE because it is only from one author, another argument can be made for its removal.
As for websites being unreliable, there is no logic in that whatsoever. WP:RS has never claimed that as the case, so do come up with a better one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Kirby did good work on the internet, but he is not a Bible scholar, he is an enthusiast. Brown was a top scholar, but I am not sure if the citation verifies the claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Understood. But is he inaccurate? I see two links to Kirby, and the article has additional external sourcing. It seems the objection is unclear at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence again. Neither Brown nor Kirby say that opinion on the authorship of John is divided or that there is no consensus - plus, of course, Kirby is not RS and Brown is too old to be used as a source for current thinking.Achar Sva (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
and I've restored them again, oh, never mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Walter, I admire you as an editor and don't seek a quarrel with you. If you follow my edits, I don't think you'll be entirely displeased.Achar Sva (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: @Walter Görlitz:, Achar in the edit summary you wrote "if the author is anonymous, it wasn't John Mark". This is a false dichotomy. How many things have you written that aren't signed by your signature? In fact scholars seem to ignore the fact that they could've just ascribed the Gospel to Peter instead of Mark if they were really "trying to link to a historical figure". This rampant skepticism is not seen in other fields of historical research. For example how do we know The Jewish War wasn't ascribed to Josephus by later revisionists and redactors? I also want to leave you with a quote from Licona in 2015: "Keener’s commentary on Acts is more than 7,000 pages! Those familiar with Keener’s work carry a huge respect for his introductory content where authorship is one of the topics covered. Keener has told me that having surveyed the academic literature on Acts and it’s prequel, Luke’s Gospel, he can assert that the majority of modern scholars hold to the traditional authorship of Luke and Acts. (Most specialists on the Gospel of Mark likewise hold to its traditional authorship.) Why doesn’t Ehrman mention this, since he mentions what the majority of scholars believe so frequently throughout the book? Perhaps he doesn’t know it or he doesn’t mention it because the majority don’t support his conclusions here." https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Starting with Eddy & Boyd, the understanding that the prior oral tradition may have been adulterated has been shown to be unlikely by modern anthropologists who have studied cultures that rely on oral tradition. They also show that early church tradition is likely reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The four bullet-points above give sources for majority opinion on traditional authorship. The question of sources (oral and written) needs to be addressed, of course, and yesterday I added a book to the bibliography that does this (Eve). Bauckham's theory of accurate oral transmission also needs to be mentioned, and some notice on its reception.Achar Sva (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Majority of those you've read? I absolutely hate it when people write nonsense like that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not my personal opinion, it's sourced.Achar Sva (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"Majority" is sourced? Again, likely due to only a select set of sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The quotes are in the bullet points. If you want to dispute them, you need to find alternative sources from the last 20 years or so (the quoted sources are from 2000 and 2002), and they need to say explicitly that the majority of critical scholars hold a different view. Dr.Ryan has done that in his post above for two of the gospels, and at this point I don't know how to integrate the two views.Achar Sva (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the majority position has changed, but a lot of sources simply say "the majority" without doing the research that Keener and Licona have. BTW, neither are "inerrantists". Furthermore, Ehrman appears to do POV-pushes via obscurity as mentioned throughout the article. Licona's article and Keener's research is from 2015/2016 and is more current in the integration. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously we prefer a well-researched, more up-to-date source rather than assuming "consensus". Let's take Fredricksen as an example (both she and Vermes converted to Judaism before their research) is a "well-respected" scholar but if you've ever read her book she starts saying things like “both profoundly similar and profoundly different” (p. 205) and “contrasts most sharply but also corresponds most profoundly” (p. 202)" How is this good research? Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Some scholars express outright disdain for the historical method, but somehow still insist they are writing history, not theology. They know they can't win as long as historians uphold the historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, scholars are not always accurate when they talk about "consensus" at a given moment since it changes and also they are not keeping a head count when they make the claims about a "majority" of scholar's views. This is why focusing on head count is very problematic. It is best to simply focus on the arguments for and against a position and let the Wikipedia readers decide. As far as most lay people are concerned, they could care less about how many scholars generally think on any one issue. They care mostly about the content than about some questionable headcounts. Considering how often scholars change their minds on so many issue and how at the same time the documents like the NT do not change at all means that we are dealing with variable "educated" opinions and guesses than accurate or precise historical discourse. The fact that mythicism is creeping up in scholarship shows how ridiculous these fields are getting. Maybe we can allow for acupuncture to creep into medical journals again...Even with historical methods, there generally is no universal agreement on most issues on any particular historical subject. Socratic problem for example. You would think it would be easy as the stuff on historical method page suggests, but apparently it is incredibly ambiguous.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed Ramos, and furthermore, Tgeorgescu, applying extreme skepticism towards the Gospels isn't doing history. For example, why prefer Josephus's account over Luke-Acts? Luke-Acts has many indicators that are evidence of historicity, but when there is a disagreement for some reason we prefer Josephus over Luke. This is NOT doing history. This is unabashed skepticism and criticism to the highest degree. When Josephus has possible contradictions between Antiquities and War do we throw him out? Inerrancy is possible, even without God. For example: I recall that I woke up today, stepped out of my apartment, went to the university, and interacted with students. Does this mean my account is suddenly in error? It's certainly possible to be inerrant. Again, you never dealt we use Fredricksen. And, it seems this page has Ehrman being cited 17 total times, compared to Wright only 3 times! How is this not one sided? Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yup, because we don't do WP:GEVAL to apologetics with WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, the position of critics is that one does not need to be skeptical without a valid reason and there is evidence inside the NT gospels that they are not inerrant. Ask any skeptic and he will say that evidence is paramount, not faith or lack of faith. Skeptics aren't people lacking faith, they are people who rely upon objective evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Ramos1990, Wikipedia policy demands that we present consensus views where they exist, otherwise majority and significant minority views. To find these we use relaible sources. These are two basic Wikipedia policies. Presenting ALL views, or arguments, as you seem to advocate, is directly contrary to this. So, no, we do not, ever, "focus on the arguments for and against a position and let the Wikipedia readers decide."
Dr. Ryan E., I must confess I have no idea what point you're trying to make - and statements like "Inerrancy is possible" are truly weird. The Pope, of course, claims to be infallible under certain conditions (a claim of which I must be somewhat dubious), but for the rest of us it would border on insanity. Achar Sva (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm simply pointing out a false dichotomy raised by Tgeorgescu when it comes to inerrant scholarship, which he considers to be not Mainstream. I'm not defending inerrancy, I'm simply pointing out that when approaching any text of the ancient world the scholar must apply the same skepticism they do to the Gospels as any other ancient Greco-Roman Biography. In this case we should not treat the Gospels/NT differently than any other ancient document. For example, let’s say we were reading a 1st century Roman biography. The work might happen to be inerrant; that is, it might contain no factual errors and any serious study of the document would have to take into account cultural context, figures of speech and literary devices common to the genre of 1st century Roman biographies. This differs from Ehrman's fundamentalist view of inerrancy (which is way different from the Chicago Statement). Just read Tgeorgescu's own page User:Tgeorgescu#Why_am_I_a_god_and_a_Son_of_God? and yet he claims to be "objective" and read the Bible in the "cultural context". Hmm...
Tgeorgescu, are you actually defending this bias for Ehrman? Are you saying NT Wright isn't an equally valid scholar? "position of critics is that one does not need to be skeptical without a valid reason". It seems to me you aren't well read on Biblical scholarship (conservative, liberal, and critical + apologetics). I apologize if I'm getting this wrong, but you seem relying solely on Ehrman for the majority of your views and thinking he somehow represents consensus (or even that "unsaid consensus" is somehow the best explanation). If you're being fair to yourself, you should read all perspectives and not just what you deem to be "objective history", your user page is an indication of this (your poor understanding of Jewish context and Biblical Hebrew). position of critics is that one does not need to be skeptical without a valid reason. Hmm really? I want to point you towards Randel McCraw Helms who stated Mark was "inadequate" in his understanding of geography because he mentions "Bethpage and Bethany" whereas anyone should know you pass through Bethany first before Bethpage. How is that being objective? Clearly Mark wasn't writing about which you would pass through first. I mean seriously. You consider this "objective"? (skeptics) are people who rely upon objective evidence: are you just restating something you've heard? This reeks of Ayn Rand. You've taken Humean skepticism and turned it into a worldview (which BTW methodological naturalism is NOT metaphysical naturalism and you seem to leave said assumption unquestioned). As Schafersman stated "It is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it". i.e. it cannot be closed minded and lack being skeptical of your skepticism. And BTW you fail to clarify what is "objective evidence" Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Anyway, I had a similar discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 26#Neutrality, wherein I said that Licona could have said that what Ehrman said is not true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes,WP:NOTFORUM. I shouldn't really comment but I can't help it.User:Dr. Ryan E. says For example, why prefer Josephus's account (about what? the census of Quirinius?-my question) over Luke-Acts? Luke-Acts has many indicators that are evidence of historicity, but when there is a disagreement for some reason we prefer Josephus over Luke. This is NOT doing history. This is unabashed skepticism and criticism to the highest degree. Whaaat? this is absurd. The Gospel of Luke starts off with accounts of two miraculous births and two visitations by the Archangel Gabriel and two chats with the same. Whatever this is, it OBVIOUSLY isn't history. He asks "Tgeorgescu, are you actually defending this bias for Ehrman?" I don't know about Tgeorgescu but I am defending this so-called "bias" for Ehrman. He is the leading authority on the New Testament today, if this article and others on the subject did NOT reference him more than anyone else, THAT would be bias.Smeat75 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Since miracles do not happen, the events must have been fabricated. So the a propiri assumption determines the underlying study. Sounds fishy to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of worldview, it is a matter of epistemology: how do you know what you know? and why should I believe you? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I didn't call it worldview, you did, but the term is apropos: God doesn't exist and miracles can't happen therefore the Gospels are fabrications of an unenlightened first-century personality cult.
True epistemology would be looking at what the documents state and coming to a conclusion from them. It's doing correct exegesis rather than eisegesis: understand the text and extracting from it what it says rather than imposing our opinions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Let me ask you the same question in regards to miracles not occurring how do you know what you know? and why should I believe you?. We're back to a forum again (sigh). Smeat, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." This reads like Josephus history. "Whatever this is, it OBVIOUSLY isn't history." Please cite a scholarly source that makes this statement. At the very least, scholars say it's a mix of history and theology. As for Ehrman, you have to read him critically and distinguish between his over-sensationalized (read pop-theories) statements and consensus. This is why you have to read others, because Ehrman does exactly often mixes in his own views with consensus and fails to distinguish between them. (source: Licona, Shenvi, et al.) Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The gospels agree/disagree

The gospels agree on most minor points - although this is affected also by the fact that they copied from each other. However the gospels tend to DISAGREE on the key supernatural issues - the miraculous nativity, the miraculous resurrection, the miraculous ascension etc. You would think that reliable histories would at least get these core facts right, but this is where the main discrepancies tend to arise. This gives rise to doubts about their historical reliability - along with the fact that some gospels don't even bother to mention the miraculous birth and the miraculous ascension, and the fact that these ancient "biographies" apparently were never intended to be factually accurate to begin with.

Also, Islam recognizes a human Jesus and much of his teachings, but takes a very different view of the more miraculous of the gospels events. Are the gospels more reliable, or are the Islamic texts more reliable?

The fact that a gospel story might name some actual places correctly, does not mean that all the rest of their details are also historically correct. James Bond stories name some actual places correctly, Harry Potter stories name some actual places correctly, etc. Wdford (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So do they agree or disagree? Did they copy or did they not? You can't have both. Why would they copy the non-miraculous and not copy the miraculous to bolster their story? It makes no sense. All 4 gospels and the creed in 1 Cor. account for a bodily resurrection. These minor details are called spotlighting (women at the tomb) seen in Plutarch's ancient biographies as well. You clearly have never read the Gospels and relied solely on what you've heard from the internet. How do I know this? You say the gospels disagree on the ascension, yet Acts is the one who records it, not the Gospels! For the nativity, if you read Matthew he says After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod indicating the events listed take place AFTER the Nativity. If you think they copied each other, why would they create 2 different accounts which would (as you say) ruin their credibility.
You bring up Harry Potter and James Bond (the usual suspects) which is how I know you are just taking internet memes and regurgitating them. Suffice to say: WP:NOTFORUM but you are begging the question against the Gospels. You're assuming the Christian chruch did not spring up (but clearly that's a lie), Harry Potter takes place primarily in Hogwarts are you saying the Judean countryside doesn't exist? You're just using typical circular reasoning by presupposing the Gospels are fiction, what evidence do you have for this? The moon landing mentions real places but no one has ever gone to the moon before, does that mean it's false? And really the Isalmic texts? Written 500 years later? And incorporate Docetism that we can trace to Muhammed (tales like Jesus turning clay birds into birds - which were written ~200 years after Jesus). And if you actually read the Quran you'll realize it says that the Word of Allah cannot be changed (and Muslims belief the Hebrew Bible and Jesus (Isa) was the Word of Allah, so just take the Quran at its word. Also it states that the Christian belief in the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary. Rather odd since no denomination has put forth this.
ANYWAYS WP:NOTFORUM this is WAAY off topic. Unless we get back to the original discussion about authorship, I'm not going to respond. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to stick to suggestions for improving the article and to resist the temptation to wander off into general discussion (WP:NOTFORUM applies). Dr. Ryan E., I don't use the word "inerrant" in the sense you seem to be using it: for me it means the theological belief the Bible, as the word of God, contains no errors; this is quite different from a history which contains no errors simply because the historian has done his job well.
As for whether the gospels agree or disagree, and whether they copied from one another or not, these matters certainly need to be addressed in the article, but they need to be addressed through reference to reliable sources.
We also need to use to use reliable sources to establish where the scholarly consensus lies on such basic areas as this (quoting Dr. Ryan E. above): "All 4 gospels and the creed in 1 Cor. account for a bodily resurrection." I believe the consensus is that the Corinthian creed, Paul and Mark speak of or imply a spiritual resurrection rather than a bodily one, that Matthew is ambiguous, and that the bodily resurrection appears only in Luke and John. This is why we need to cite sources rather rely on our personal opinions. (An interesting example is your statement that the gospels don't mention the ascension - Luke does, and most interestingly he contradicts Acts, saying that it occurred on the same day that Jesus rose from the tomb, while Acts says it was forty days after).
Dr. Ryan E. again: I think you do Wdford a disservice when you say he's "presupposing the Gospels are fiction" - I think what he's saying is that the gospels contain some fictional elements. It's a question of what sources the gospel-writers used, and how they composed their works.Achar Sva (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Please cite your source for a spiritual resurrection: Ware, Cook, Hurtado all state Paul believed a physical resurrection "against the thoughts of the Greek philosophers whom bodily resurrection meant confinement". Achar, Wdford literally compared the Gospels to Harry Potter. This is literally an internet meme.
As for the ascension, I assume you know that Acts and Luke are part of Luke-Acts, correct? This is what I am referring to. Wdford stated the gospels tend to DISAGREE Gospels...plural. There is no current consensus that states they contradict each other (Ehrman states this as his belief). You state Luke does, and most interestingly he contradicts Acts, saying that it occurred on the same day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Really stretching it since Luke wrote Acts. Please quote from Luke where it says "that it occurred on the same day that Jesus rose from the tomb". In Acts it even says " After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion." Clearly the writer was emphasizing different time periods, and in Luke 24:50 "When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany" it does not say (as much as Ehrman would like it to) Luke 24:13 "Now that same day". As Craig Evans/Mike Licona put it, Luke, running out of scroll space here, used compression simply highlighting the important points. None of the Gospels are exhaustive. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
https://books.google.com/books?id=u1N4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=did+luke+say+the+ascension+occured+on+the+same+day&source=bl&ots=GpRNb5wldM&sig=ACfU3U0PPxoxy0iq99yKzSbuN31GBvw_Qg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiik4iQgIfoAhWOGDQIHUUhAjkQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=did%20luke%20say%20the%20ascension%20occured%20on%20the%20same%20day&f=false My Source Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Ryan E.: Here Stanley Porter is discussing the contradiction between Luke's ascension-account, where it occurs at the end of the events of the day of His resurrection), and that of Acts, where it occurs 40 days after. This clash is the largest single problem with the theory of single authorship for Luke-Acts, which is otherwise solidly argued (argued by the academic community in general, that is). Porter examines the possibility that Luke 24:51 did not originally contain a reference to the ascension, which would be a solution, but rejects it; he examines the lexicon, and finds that these don't offer a solution; he examines the text of Luke, and decides that Luke does not in fact indicate clearly that the events of 24:51 occurred on the day of the resurrection. This passage by Porter is quite famous, but the question remains open.Achar Sva (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: and decides that Luke does not in fact indicate clearly that the events of 24:51 occurred on the day of the resurrection so now we have 2 sources, both saying that it cannot be inferred that Luke was saying the ascension occurred on the same day as the other events (thank you for this) Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Dr. Ryan E., I was working on the assumption that you are familiar with the content of this Wikipedia article, which already describes the issue of the three "synoptic" gospels sharing a large amount of text. They agree in some parts and disagree in other parts – obviously they can do both at the same time. They copied each other in some parts, but not in other parts - obviously they can do both at the same time. We don't know why they still chose to conflict with each other on core issues – however they clearly did just that, and it makes them unreliable – at least on the core supernatural issues. These are not "minor details", they are the core issues of Christianity – the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension etc.
I am quite familiar with the gospels actually. The description of the nativity in Matthew differs significantly from the description in Luke, and the accounts are not reconcilable. Luke supposedly wrote Acts as well, but he contradicts himself – the mention of the ascension in Luke is not the same as in Acts, and no amount of gymnastics can reconcile this. Mark also mentions the ascension, but in the last part of Mark which is generally agreed to be "unreliable".
Obviously all events in the gospels concerning Jesus take place after the nativity – they could hardly have taken place before he was born. Obviously the Judean countryside exists, but this does not mean that the events described in the gospels really took place. The texts of Josephus and the Islamic scholars, among others, are no less historical than the gospels (and are perhaps more so), but they do differ from the gospels in some material ways – which texts do we accept as historical, and why? Obviously the Christian church "sprang up", but so did every other religion – does that mean all conflicting religious teachings are all totally true as well?
Luke 24:13 does actually say "Now that same day". It clearly describes that on the day of resurrection (Easter Sunday), Jesus encountered two men on the road and revealed himself to them. They invited him in for a meal, and finally recognised him. Then, per v33, "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem", where they told the others. Then, per v36, "While they were still talking about this" Jesus appeared among them and showed them his wounds, etc. Jesus then lead them to Bethany, where he ascended. "Running out of scroll space" is a ridiculous explanation, considering Luke subsequently found enough parchment to write the whole of Acts as well. The fact that Luke apparently wrote both the gospel and the Acts but managed to contradict himself, is a good reason to believe that the texts we have today are not entirely original – or reliable.
The "Internal consistency" section is core to the article, because irreconcilable inconsistencies are solid indicators that something is amiss. I think we need to add a paragraph on the ascension, at least, since this is a core issue of the Christian belief. I am also quite surprised that the resurrection stories are so different – did the women find the angels inside the tomb or outside? Was the tomb open or closed? Was there one angel or two? None of the four gospel accounts agree. How often did those people meet angels, that such a momentous event is so badly remembered and passed down?
Wdford (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
If the topic of this thread is whether the gospels do or do not bother agree and disagree on various points, I believe there can be no doubt that this is the view of the majority of scholars, and very likely it's a consensus. In which case, of course, we need to reflect it in our article.
Dr. Ryan E., if you believe this is not the case - that there is real disagreement among scholars - can you please give us a source?
Wdford mentions the Virgin Birth. He says it's a core issue of Christianity, but it wasn't core when the gospels were being written. In both Matthew and Mark it's proof that Jesus God at his conception, but for Mark he became God's son through adoption at his baptism, while for Paul this happened at his ascension, and for John he was "in the beginning). So it's not the Virgin Birth that's important, but the theological arguments behind it - major differences, and yet basic agreement that Jesus was the son of God.Achar Sva (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Achar, I want to go back and say the original argument is that Licona and Keener has verified data that says at least Luke and Mark appear to have been written (by consensus) by the traditionally attributed authors and John, as you say, is held to be an eyewitness (though being an apostle is tenuous). Matthew has no consensus. You're right, the birth of Jesus was such of little importance because the Resurrection was very important. Wdford makes a classic argument from silence for both the Nativity and the Ascension. He didn't even realize I dealt and QUOTED Luke 24:13,33,36 but fails to deal with the fact (as the authors realize in my source dated 2016) about Luke 24:50 which is actually about the ascension which does NOT say that. My question to Wdford is WHY would Luke (trying to make stuff up) contradict himself? This would ruin his credibility. Wdford is writing his bias into scholarship. If he can cite a modern source as to why it is wrong, then we can say there is good reason to present 2 views and no consensus. the Islamic scholars, among others, are no less historical than the gospels (and are perhaps more so) can he cite a source for this? Which credible scholar says this? does that mean all conflicting religious teachings are all totally true as well? Shows me s/he doesn't care about scholarship, just POV pushing atheism. (He's invoking the what about all the other gods argument)."Running out of scroll space" is a ridiculous explanation considering Luke subsequently found enough parchment to write the whole of Acts as well This is absurd, considering the key word here is *subsequently* and we're talking about the cost of writing a scroll for the Gospel here, and why compression was used. This is why in Acts the details are expanded upon. Again he needs to provide a cited source where compression is not a technique employed by Greco-Roman biographers and why it doesn't make sense for Luke to have crammed the important points (that he thought to be important) in his scroll. Given this was roughly ~2000 years ago, compression and spotlighting (as with the angels) makes perfect sense. This is also treated as differences in eyewitness accounts, writing emphasis, and perspectives (Spotlighting Mary Magdalene for example). I don't know why Wdford is bringing up this point (to what end?) unless he wants to debate apologetics with me and turn this into a forum. This is the last reply if he comes back with a list of the usual arguments again, instead of talking about the original topic of authorship. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
To stick to authorship then - the article is already full of references and citations to the numerous sources that make the point that the authorship of the gospels is unknown, but that the four claimed evangelists are not the original authors. There is no need to repeat that all here – anybody can read it up for themselves. There are also additional sources in Wikipedia at [1] and at [2], among others.
You have however chosen to harp on Keener and Licona. Craig S. Keener is a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, a past professor at Palmer Theological Seminary and president of the Evangelical Theological Society. Per Wikipedia, Michael R. Licona is a Christian apologist, and an associate professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University, which is recognized for its apologetics program and where Community Life and Worship Credits are required for graduation. He has stated that accounts can be considered to be historically reliable if the stories are “true enough” and if we can get an "accurate gist" of what occurred. Licona is happy that the gospels are still historically reliable even though they include lots of "literary special effects". These particular sources are hardly objective, and these particular sources cannot be considered to be representative of mainstream scholarship generally. The vast majority of mainstream scholars are not Christian apologists.
The Nicene Creed, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, includes the lines "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ ….. begotten, not made, …..and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." I submit that the inclusion in the Creed means the Virgin Birth is a core issue of Christianity. However I do agree that it was not so from the beginning – because the gospels were tweaked and tuned over centuries to achieve the theological objectives present in the canonical versions we use today, and because half the gospels didn’t bother to mention it at all. Licona admits that he cannot explain away the glaring differences in the nativity accounts, but goes on to say that "we have very good historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, which adds plausibility to the miracle accounts in the Gospels, including Jesus's virgin birth." Once again, mainstream scholars disagree.
Wdford (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Wdford, you have disputed the data that Licona and Keener have collected recently. This is consensus among scholars. Not to mention your first link you provided quoted Ehrman 7+ times. If you truly believe Ehrman represents consensus, show the data he cites. Did he take a survey that Keener did? Your twisted and biased definition of who counts as scholarship is hilariously not neutral. You apparently have a warped definition of WP:NPOV to discount Licona and Keener as fringe. Ehrman does not represent, in any way, consensus on a lot of issues I detailed above. If you want to cling to Ehrman for your beliefs, go ahead, I prefer reading a variety of scholarship from the Jesus Seminar to the inerrantists and everyone in between. As I have mentioned consensus has changed. Achar, @Walter Görlitz:, and others agree. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of mainstream scholars are not Christian apologists which just makes their argument backed data stronger. Wdford, Wikipedia has no place for POV pushing and in your opinion anyone who happens to be Christian apparently does bad scholarship. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, looking through the talk page, it seems like there are many POV pushes and edit-war disputes. May I remind you of WP:PILLARS and that POV pushing is not okay. the gospels were tweaked and tuned over centuries is Christ myth theory pushing. This is rejected by the "mainstream" (even critical) scholars that you quote. For the virgin birth Matthew and Luke count as multiple-attestation, but an argument from silence does nothing to discount the criteria or historicity. "present in the canonical versions we use today" except as Ehrman points out if he and Norman Geisler were to sit down in a room and hammer out what the Gospels originally said, they would agree we can recover the originals to 99.5% accuracy. This is far higher than any other historical document (if you apply said skepticism to other historical documents we would know nothing about history). Even Ehrman has an opinion on the remaining 3 passages about which one is likely more historical. These particular sources are hardly objective cite a source that calls Licona and Keener non-objective. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I found another quote by Ehrman in his scholarly work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings which I assume you have read. Page 245 Ehrman asserts that a historian is like a prosecuting attorney who presumes charges against the Gospel writers. How is this in any way objective? Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

may I ask what the point of this debate is? Please remember wp:notaforum.—Ermenrich (talk)

Refuting the exclusion of sources and the reasons for doing so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions for this article? Otherwise this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Licona and the consensus on Mark

Dr. Ryan E., can you give us that link to Licona again? Just the link.Achar Sva (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god
Achar, here you go. Thank you for being open to reviewing sources. He quotes Keener's 3 volume scholarly serious (of which I have read - though admittedly have not gotten through all of it). He also demonstrates empirically how Ehrman is specifically pushing his POV as consensus while blurring his POV with the actually consensus data. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I respect Keener's integrity (meaning I'm sure he'd be happy to quote and reference those who disagree with him) and his meticulousness (a word the world needs but which doesn't really exist, even if spellcheck seems to think it does). That said, this conclusion, "that the majority of modern scholars hold to the traditional authorship of Luke and Acts," is so far off what I've read that I'm unwilling to accept it too easily. I wonder about all those other sources which say the opposite - has there been a sudden shift, or is Keener counting people others exclude? I don't expect you to answer those questions, they're rhetorical.
Licona's blog isn't a reliable source - blogs never are, for serious academic topics like this. We'll have to wait till Keener's book comes out, or someone else says the same thing in a book or peer-reviewed article. In the meantime, you might like to contact Keener yourself and ask for more information - he might answer you, he certainly would ignore me.Achar Sva (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Was the question whether it was a RS or was it something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The question is whether the current scholarly consensus is that the traditional ascriptions are valid, or not (not whether they are/are not valid, but whether Keener's judgement as reported by Licona is valid). It's so far away from everything else I've read that I'm very cautious. I'm suggesting to Dr Ryan that he might contact Keener (or Licona), if he thinks it approriate, and ask for some amplification. Even so, blogs are not reliable sources for this type of article - that's not a reflection on Licona, it's simply that we need to prevent people invoking their favourite bloggers in what is essentially a formal, academic exercise. I wouldn't accept Ehrman's blog either. Achar Sva (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept Ehrman's blog either, but for me for me it's because he makes a lot of guessing on his blog. Just read Ehrman's posts (and his replies to commenters) vs. Licona where Licona cites Ehrman's own Forged and his source (Keener, et al). Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Ehrman's blog is for newbies/enthusiasts, not for scholars. Otherwise, he stated clearly that he speaks of the consensus of critical scholars, i.e. of those scholars who do not automatically rubber-stamp theological orthodoxy. See e.g. [3]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Traditional" attribution/dates and Bauckham's hypothesis

Just in case anyone is wondering where the article is going with the recent spate of edits on attribution and dates (and transmision history), what I'm doing here is presenting the mainstream/majority view as I understand it to be. I find it, or judge it to be mainstream, by looking for statements such as "the consensus is..." or "most scholars believe". But because this is an article which will attract people curious about hte other view, the traditional one, I intend to have another section in due course about that. Richard Bauckham is important for that, but not perhaps central - anyway, I'll see when I start researching. Achar Sva (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Earliest extant manuscripts"

Do people (I mean other editors) think the "earliest extant manuscripts" section is useful? It's mostly about tiny fragments of manuscripts - what, really, is the relevance to the historicity of the gospels? Isn't it enough to say that the earliest fragment of John (Rylands) is identical with the text we have today, and that it seems texts have been conserved quite faithfully? In other words, more writing about the relationship of old mss to historicity, rather than this table? Achar Sva (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's only a minor help in explaining when the earliest manuscripts exist. This goes on to help explain how close the earliest documents match later ones and thereby avoid transmission errors. I don't know it's necessary as it adds too much weight to this concept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree to remove the table - it wasn't much use to most readers. However we CANNOT say that the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is "identical with the text we have today", because the Rylands fragment consists of a handful of random words, not even complete sentences - far less "text". Who knows what words or phrases have been added or deleted around those few words we have left today? Even one word added or deleted can make a world of difference to the meaning. We also definitely cannot deduce for this that "it seems texts have been conserved quite faithfully". An over-zealous scribe on a divine mission would not have written a whole different story, merely added a few words or deleted a few words as needed to advance his POV. Wdford (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I haven't written about the transmission of texts yet so can't really comment - but I thinkit's worth having something in the article on the matter.Achar Sva (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. What wording do you propose? Wdford (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
As of right now I don't have any wording. I imagine something noting whatever it is scholars think about the reliability of the texts and their transmission - obviously you can't have historical reliability without reliable texts. And a mention of the major significant additions, which I think are the long ending of Mark and the trinitarian comma, but I haven't researched anything yet. Achar Sva (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
So are you proposing to separate issues such as the subsequent adding of the long ending of Mark, from issues such as the clearly-non-historic nativity stories? Is there really evidence that the nativity stories were included by the original authors/editors, rather than were added subsequently (perhaps within a few decades) by over-zealous scribes/evangelists? Wdford (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
When looking at the question of the transmission of the mss, yes, because there's hard evidence that the long ending and the comma are additions. There's none that the nativity stories were other than part of the original, although of course it's suggested that Matthew in particular was an addition (because the style is different from the rest). Lincoln (in the bibliography)m will discuss this. But yes again, the various elements of the stories need to be addressed, from the nativity stories to the post-resurrection appearances. The selection of episodes will need to be somewhat arbitrary, given that there are far too many pericopes to cover all of them, but I think our readers would expect it.Achar Sva (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the nativity stories as possible additions, as you raise this, the important point would be the challenge of docetism in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries. Docetism claimed that Jesus was not real, but an appearance, for how could God be born and suffer and die? The authors of the two gospels involved may have added the virgin birth stories to demonstrate that God could assume human form and be fully human while also being divine - but that's hypothetical of course, no one knows why they added these stories to Mark, or what was in their minds. See Lincoln again.Achar Sva (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of Jerusalem

Hi there. You have included a comment that "Matthew 22:1-10 shows a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem". However the reference, Sim 2008, actually does not agree with that deduction, and his argument is convincing. Is this a good sentence to include? Wdford (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sim gives 80-90 as the consensus. It's fine for him, as a scholar, to argue that the consensus is incorrect, but our job is different, we simply note the weight of scholarly opinion. For that reason I wouldn't include Sims's personal argument, since for all I know he might be the only one to hold it.Achar Sva (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"External sources"

I deleted the External Sources section because it really had nothing to do with the gospels, it was about the historicity of Jesus, which isn't the same thing. In any case it didn't contain much actual information, despite its length.Achar Sva (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

3 New Sources, 2 New Additions: majority of scholarly views on the Gospel genre, the definition of historically reliable, and whether or not the Gospels are

I have three new sources, with accompanying material I would like to insert into the beginning of this article. People have been very upset about the publishers being Christian in my previous contribution so I found some mainstream, non-Christian publishers with great recent sources on the topic. Many argue these views are not mainstream-- however, my source indicates the majority of scholars actually view the Gospels as ancient biographies, which they go on to say typically contain substantial historical information. This would lend credence to the notion that some scholars considering the gospels to be historically reliable is not a fringe perspective, but rather at the very least a significant minority view WP:RS, which would in turn provide a rationale for including them in the article in some capacity.

Then, an open source (CC BY license, see WP:Copy-paste) provides a provisional definition of historically reliable, establishes four criteria (author chose sources judiciously, the author used his sources reliably, ability to verify numerous items reported, no more than a very small percentage of items reported by the author have a chance of being errors), and does a targeted comparison of the Gospel of Mark with Suetonius's Life of Augustus. The result is that with the given criteria, the Gospel of Mark is considered perhaps even more historically reliable than Suetonius's Life of Augustus.

Arguments about this research being invalid because the authors are Christian OR apologetic are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The publishers are mainstream "unapologetic" and reputable. They don't publish apologetic nonsense. These are evidence based historical claims, not theology.

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." "...biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone" WP:BIASED

There is no requirement for a source to be atheist / agnostic. Reliable sources on the Gospels can be Christians.


Here is what I would like to add in some capacity with accompanying sources:

Among scholars, a majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of ancient biographies. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.[1]
Historically reliable means that, at the very minimum, that the account provides an accurate gist or an essentially faithful representation of what occurred, it is “true enough” (more true than false)[2]. Based on four criteria (author chose sources judiciously, author used sources reliably, ability to verify numerous items reported, no more than a very small percentage of items reported by the author have a chance of being errors), the Gospel of Mark in the Bible is historically reliable in this sense, perhaps even more so than contemporary ancient sources such as Suetonius’s Life of Augustus[3].

If you are going to argue these views are somehow not mainstream, I would like to see quotations from sources saying that. The line in the article currently says "little is considered historically reliable", yet those sources don't exactly say that. Scrutinizing them further, and the validity of the claim associated with the sources, I will do next. I'm happy to be proved wrong. A quick glance through google scholar actually indicates the contrary, that these are mainstream views. Most sources found through them on the subject of the historical reliability of the gospels are incredibly supportive of the notion that they are.

Let me know what you guys think. I am open to working with everybody, just make the proposal and we can get this material into the article, where it belongs. Cheers. Nbbowen0738 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nbbowen0738: welcome to wikipedaia. I see you are putting quite a bit of effort in these additions and being reverted. I think that some of your sources are good to add with some rewording perhaps like softening the claims would help (Keener is pretty good). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which incorporates views of numerous sources and is not a source for finding truth on a particular matter. So I think there is hope for you to make beneficial contributions to this article.
But in looking at the article without your adds, it does include what you wanted to contribute no? The first paragraph says that some scholars believe that the Gospels meets historical criteria while others think there is little that is historically reliable. It looks neutral and balanced already with that wording because it certainly is true that there are maximalists and minimalists on the issue. Actually its the same dynamic when it comes to the the historical reliability of documents on Socrates, and Pythagorean corpus on Pythagoras.
Perhaps the issue is over writing in Wikipedia's voice that the gospels are reliable or not. Technically this would be a broad generalization as it makes it look like as if scholars are thinking in terms of a dichotomy of "reliable" or "not reliable", which is generally not as black or white in the actual sources. The fact that archaeologists and historians use the gospels all the time for information and clues on 1st century Palestine means that there is "usefulness" in the gospels if not reliability or lack thereof. If the Gospels were completely useless then archaeologists would not be using them at all.
Just throwing out some ideas.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Point taken, you don't discount sources for simply being Christian, but rather because they are fringe and not in the mainstream. I would say then, you would have to substantiate your claim that these viewpoints are indeed fringe, or establish a method or criteria of establishing which sources are fringe or main stream. Then we can apply that method or criterion to all the sources in the article. Considering that the majority of scholars consider the gospels to be ancient biography,[4] I do not think it is fringe to say some scholars think the gospels are more historically based than not. In fact, I don't know how you can call something an ancient biography unless it indeed has verifiable historical truth contained therein. A majority of scholars could certainly consider it a myth, or fable, or tale, but they don't.
@Ramos1990: I think keener can fit nicely into the second paragraph after the second sentence. It is useful to know what the majority of scholars consider the historical gospels to be, and it is telling on the historical reliability of such. I think the article has similar sentiments to what I want to add, but I think the provisional definition of historical reliability and the targeted comparisons between other ancient biographies is useful to understanding the relative historical reliability of the gospels. The provisional definition of historical reliability can be added into the first paragraph. The historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark in particular compared to Suetonius’s Life of Augustus.
@Ramos1990:@Tgeorgescu: What do you two think? Cheers.
Nbbowen0738 (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Life of Augustus is bad (unreliable) non sequitur (fallacy) NT gospels are reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I would say Keener and Van Voorst are certainly usable sources. The article has lots of room for diverse views either way. I would just suggest being careful when claiming something to be reliable or not reliable 'overall' as these are charged terms like proven or not proven. Probably one can attribute when citing a source and leave the readers to decide on how far the Gospels are good sources, decent sources, or bad sources overall. Since you are new see WP:Attribution. When it comes to articles on wikipedia on religion they can be dicey and attributions at least puts the weight on the source. Just as an FYI, there are similar issues when it comes to assessing the reliability of sources on Socrates and on that side of the research it seems that scholars have mostly given up on trying to see if we can ever get to the historical Socrates. See Socratic Problem. This is how historians of the ancient world are ending up - being ultimately unsure of much of history. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree: declaring the NT gospels as either fully reliable or fully unreliable is a mockery of the historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: "Life of Augustus is bad (unreliable) non sequitur (fallacy) NT gospels are reliable" no one claimed that Straw man
I've come up with a revised statement with an additional source. Please argue with facts and sources why these should not be included. I'm not interested in your feelings. Thank you -
Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies[5][6], the same genre as Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history[7]. Some biblical scholars even view Luke’s Gospel as ancient history rather than ancient biography[8]. Nbbowen0738 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
"ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history" - you're no doubt aware that ancient biographies of Julius Casar written shortly after his death describe his resurrection and ascension into Heaven? On the third day after his death, too - makes you think, doesn't it? Achar Sva (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Plutarch lived hundreds of years after Alexander the Great. At the very least that’s a horrible example. What exactly is it your after except that Jesus really did feed 500 people with loaves and fishes?—Ermenrich (talk)

Caesar's ascension into Heaven was witnessed by many hundreds of people in Rome and throughout the empire - it's in Augustus's "Autobiography", and Augustus, of course, was a contemporary of Caesar. Sounds like very solid evidence to me. On a more serious note, Nbbowen0738, I think you're misunderstanding what Keener is doing in that article. Here's the abstract:
  • A majority of scholars today recognize that the Gospels are ancient biographies. This recognition has implications for our valuation of the information content in the Gospels. Biographies written as soon after the subject's life as the Gospels normally include substantial historical information. The biographies of the later emperors in Suetonius offer a reasonable test case. Comparing Suetonius's biography of Otho with information about Otho in Tacitus's Histories, as well as Plutarch's biographies of Galba and Otho, confirms that Suetonius, whatever his other agendas, did not invent material freely but depended heavily on preexisting historical information.
so he's saying that Suetonius relied on previous sources - which is pretty much the mainstream consensus regarding the gospel authors. That's why I'm trying to take this article into a consideration of the sources behind the gospels - Q, M. L, and the sources of Mark and John, as well as (not in place of) the four gospels themselves. I've used and referenced a lot of sources, and you might like to help out by checking them - have I used them fairly and accurately? I'd be the first to say that I'm not infallible. Achar Sva (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Keener, Craig S. "Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius's Biography and Tacitus's History, with Implications for the Gospels' Historical Reliability." Bulletin for Biblical Research (2011): 331-355. Penn State University Press. See Abstract. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424373?seq=1
  2. ^ Pelling, Christopher. Plutarch and history: eighteen studies. ISD LLC, 2011. P.160
  3. ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. “Current Trends in New Testament Study.” https://www.mdpi.com/Journal/Religions, vol. 10, Jan. 2020, p. 53., doi:10.3390/books978-3-03928-027-8.
  4. ^ Keener, Craig S. "Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius's Biography and Tacitus's History, with Implications for the Gospels' Historical Reliability." Bulletin for Biblical Research (2011): 331-355. Penn State University Press. See Abstract. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424373?seq=1
  5. ^ Keener, Craig S. "Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius's Biography and Tacitus's History, with Implications for the Gospels' Historical Reliability." Bulletin for Biblical Research (2011): 331-355. Penn State University Press. See Abstract. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424373?seq=14
  6. ^ Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. Oxford University Press, 2016. p.3
  7. ^ Keener, Craig S. "Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius's Biography and Tacitus's History, with Implications for the Gospels' Historical Reliability." Bulletin for Biblical Research (2011): 331-355. Penn State University Press. See Abstract. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424373?seq=1
  8. ^ Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. Oxford University Press, 2016. p.3

Cruelty to weasels

(1) On 2021-02-12 I gently modified the last paragraph in the section 'Texts' because it was unrepresentative of current scholarship. My change was quickly reverted as 'weasely'.

(2) That paragraph was in the wrong place; it related to section 5.4 'Teachings of Jesus'.

(3) The title of that section should be changed to 'Parables of Jesus'.

(4) That section as it stands expresses the judgment of J. P. Meier (whose book I have in front of me), who states (p.48) "Relatively few of the Synoptic parables can be attributed to the historical Jesus with a good degree of probability ... I realize that this assertion flies in the face of a strong consensus among parable researchers."

I should be grateful if some animal-lover would compose an acceptable section 5.4.HuPi (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure that there is much of a weasel-harming difference between "It has been argued that the parable of the Good Samaritan is an invention by the author of Luke" and "The parable of the Good Samaritan appears to be an invention by the author of Luke"? JezGrove (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Role of eyewitnesses

Given the predominance of views against his theories, isn't Richard Bauckham unduly overrepresented in the 'Role of eyewitnesses' subsection? JezGrove (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

JezGrove : Probably yes, but if we don't mention him then those who support his ideas will be asking why not. Achar Sva (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If he is given WP:UNDUE weight, then it should be reduced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, this section is undue and tending toward fringe, let's thin it down a bit. Wdford (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed too; undue emphasis on Bauckham indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the para following this discussion. In fact I tried to reduce it to its essence, but it soon became clear that the essence merely repeated what was already said in prior paras. Achar Sva (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

ShiningShrine edits

These edits by User:ShiningShrine added info which was redundant with info already there in the lead, primarily based on a questionable source, namely an apologetic website. This is not how we write the WP:LEAD. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Redundance is your argument now? Moved into the first section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
There are many more sources if you need them. Just because they are more conservative does not mean they are questionable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)`
Then please find them. That is how Wikipedia works. See WP:RS. -Jordgette [talk] 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

@Bobn2:

Some parts of the Christian New Testament are primary sources, but not all. WP:NOR is clear about this: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources"
— User:Doug Weller

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels/Archive_6&oldid=1221513062"