About those gospel writers

[Rhea]

In another thread, Atheos said,

[*] The anonymous documents GMatt, GLuke and GJohn are much more parsimoniously explained by cultural differences accruing over geography and time than to be treated as independent corroboration of miraculous activities, none of which any of the writers of any of these documents claim to have witnessed. The writers of these documents never identified themselves, never claimed to be witnesses and never claimed to have talked to anyone who was a witness of any of the things they wrote about. They constitute about the worst possible form of evidence as they provide us with agenda-filled claims about extraordinary events for which there is absolutely no evidence that any of it ever happened. Attempting to use themselves as corroboration of themselves remains circular no matter how many times you claim that they are independent corroboration. They aren't.

[/list]

This is something I had not thought about before. There had always been plenty of reasons to conclude that the whole of both testaments are pretty much fiction, so I had never focused on this bit before. So what are the scholarly theological backstories of the gospel writers?

Are they really pretty much unknown people? And none of them was ever a follower? Not a single first hand tale? This begets the obvious question, "well why was not a single person interested enough to write anything down as it happened?

But before that, school me on the backstory of these writers, please...

 

[Rhea]

(one might argue, of course, that this alleged "prophet" preached that the whole world would end within the current lifetime, and therefore any writing of anything was an exercise in idiocy to someone who truly believed that the world was at imminent end. But that presents its own theological problem based on how wrong that prediction was...)

 

[funinspace]

Ironically, from that same thread, I posted this quote citing the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Its actually a pretty good reference Bible. All the books have an introduction, and the scholars seemed to work pretty hard to be honest about separating what they know from what is faith. Each intro section is only 1-3 pages, and would give you a good summary. FWIW this Bible has all of the Gospels as anonymous authorship, and similar to the below quote regarding Mark.

Mark is by most all accounts the earliest written. And according to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, in its introduction to Mark states:
“Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark, who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter’s preaching. Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition. Mark is by far the shortest of the four canonical Gospels and is generally thought to be the earliest, and to have been used in the composition of both Matthew and Luke. Because of the vague and indefinite references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, the Gospel is thought to have been composed just prior to the widespread Jewish popular revolt that began in 66CE…”

This same Bible estimates John to have been written circa 80-90CE.

And it is often entertaining to quote theologians who worked to bring forth a new & respected Bible version, to counter silly fundagelical claims.

 

[Rhea]

Oh, thank you, I missed that. Will go read - and welcome further commentary here...

edited to add: oh, there is no online version to read?

 

[funinspace]

Oh, thank you, I missed that. Will go read - and welcome further commentary here...

edited to add: oh, there is no online version to read?

NP...I don't know if there is an online version, but I haven't bumped into one. I forgot to add that it is the New Revised Standard Version...Its kind of cool as it also includes the Apocryphal/Deuterocannonical books as well, including stuff from the Greek and Slavonic Bibles.

 

[Trodon]

Little can be proven about who wrote the gospels, and when they were written. I have read the Bible eight times in seven English translations. I cannot read the original languages. I have read many books about the Bible.

I have read that the gospels of Matthew and John included as sources earlier, more primitive accounts written by the apostles by those names.

According to the non Fundamentalist scholarly consensus the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same man, who may have been a physician and traveling companion of St. Paul. Moreover, it is generally agreed that the author of the Gospel of St. Luke used the Gospel of St. Mark as a source. He also used a more primitive gospel that no longer exists, that is called Q. That much I agree with. The non Fundamentalist consensus also dates Luke and Acts to some time after the end of the first Jewish uprising, which ended in 73 AD with the fall of Masada.

From my reading of Acts I suspect that it was written when St. Paul was still alive. It ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader of Acts has been told on several occasions that St. Paul has not violated the laws of the Jews, or of Rome. Roman Jews visit him. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, the conversations are cordial. There is nowhere the sense of approaching doom, that this is it, and St. Paul is about to be executed. Nowhere does Acts say that St. Paul is executed.

If Acts was written when St. Paul was still alive, it was written before 66 AD. Eusebius in a history written three centuries later says that St. Paul was executed before the Jewish Uprising began in 66 AD.

If Acts was written before 66 AD, the Gospel of St. Luke was written earlier, and the Gospel of St. Mark was written still earlier. St. Luke and St. Mark would have had access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

Q is usually believed to have been written down from oral traditions that had been handed down for at least a generation. I believe it is more likely that it was an eye witness account by an anonymous disciple of Jesus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If Acts was written before 66 AD, the Gospel of St. Luke was written earlier, and the Gospel of St. Mark was written still earlier. St. Luke and St. Mark would have had access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

I'm not sure if timestamps could support this claim. At best you could say that the authors might have been contemporaries of people who witnessed...

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the first century, there was no such thing as accepted historical method. A time traveling historian from our era would go village to village, finding these supposed eye witnesses. Do the gospels read like this ever happened? Look at the way the story of the two crucified thieves is shaped into a good guy, bad guy narrative. Look at the creation of a birth story for JC. Look at the extravagant invention in the Gospel of John (unless you think the synoptic Jesus was a guy who would create any of those poetic metaphors for himself.) And on and on and on. But Rhea has it right in that second post: this was a doomsday cult whose time limit ran out somewhere around 80 or 90 CE.

 

[Trodon]

If Acts was written before 66 AD, the Gospel of St. Luke was written earlier, and the Gospel of St. Mark was written still earlier. St. Luke and St. Mark would have had access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

I'm not sure if timestamps could support this claim. At best you could say that the authors might have been contemporaries of people who witnessed...

Taking into consideration the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD is important in evaluating the accuracy of the gospels. That uprising devastated Judea and Galilee, and may have killed or dispersed over a million Jews. Moreover, it destroyed written records that may have existed about the ministry of Jesus. Anything written before the Uprising is likely to be more accurate than anything written afterwards.

The Jewish Uprising is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, although verses here and there may allude to it.

About half of the New Testament consists of epistles by St. Paul. It is generally agreed that these were written before the uprising began. Unfortunately, he very rarely mentions details of Jesus' life, other than his execution and presumed resurrection.

 

[fta]

From my reading of Acts I suspect that it was written when St. Paul was still alive. It ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader of Acts has been told on several occasions that St. Paul has not violated the laws of the Jews, or of Rome. Roman Jews visit him. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, the conversations are cordial. There is nowhere the sense of approaching doom, that this is it, and St. Paul is about to be executed. Nowhere does Acts say that St. Paul is executed.

I have a book about World War Two. It ends with the surrender of the Japanese in 1945. Therefore the book must have been written around 1946.

No early Christian writer mentions Acts until Irenaeus in 180CE. Burton Mack, Richard Pervo, and Joseph Tyson all date it around 110-120CE, as does the old Encyclopedia Biblica.

As G.A. Wells says, "One of Acts' overall concerns is to make clear that Christianity posed no threat to the authority of the Romans. Hence, although the author could not -- against the obvious truth -- conclude the book by having Paul set free from Roman captivity, he does his best to insinuate that this is what the Romans wanted."

So, "Luke" covers up the embarrassing fact that Paul was executed by the Romans as a troublemaker. He deliberately chose to end his book by discreetly specifying that Paul spent "two years in Rome ... no man forbidding him." Obviously "Luke" was aware there had been some change in Paul's circumstances after those "two years" were up (i.e. his execution). Luke also suppresses Peter's execution by the Romans for similar reasons.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In another thread, Atheos said,

[*] The anonymous documents GMatt, GLuke and GJohn are much more parsimoniously explained by cultural differences accruing over geography and time than to be treated as independent corroboration of miraculous activities, none of which any of the writers of any of these documents claim to have witnessed. The writers of these documents never identified themselves, never claimed to be witnesses and never claimed to have talked to anyone who was a witness of any of the things they wrote about. They constitute about the worst possible form of evidence as they provide us with agenda-filled claims about extraordinary events for which there is absolutely no evidence that any of it ever happened. Attempting to use themselves as corroboration of themselves remains circular no matter how many times you claim that they are independent corroboration. They aren't.

[/list]

This is something I had not thought about before. There had always been plenty of reasons to conclude that the whole of both testaments are pretty much fiction, so I had never focused on this bit before. So what are the scholarly theological backstories of the gospel writers?

Are they really pretty much unknown people? And none of them was ever a follower? Not a single first hand tale? This begets the obvious question, "well why was not a single person interested enough to write anything down as it happened?

But before that, school me on the backstory of these writers, please...

And these gospels are just four of many. We don't know how many gospels were circulating, but are certain there were hundreds. Imagine that if from 1776 to 1976 we didn't know who wrote what of all American literary fiction, including not only original documents but also plagiarisms, redactions, changes, etc. And then two-thousand years later after wars, migrations, translations, etc. we were trying to sort it all out and attempting to discover how these stories came to be. Could we do a very good job? Of what could we actually be certain? Now toss in a religious bent. Good luck.

 

[Trodon]

From my reading of Acts I suspect that it was written when St. Paul was still alive. It ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader of Acts has been told on several occasions that St. Paul has not violated the laws of the Jews, or of Rome. Roman Jews visit him. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, the conversations are cordial. There is nowhere the sense of approaching doom, that this is it, and St. Paul is about to be executed. Nowhere does Acts say that St. Paul is executed.

I have a book about World War Two. It ends with the surrender of the Japanese in 1945. Therefore the book must have been written around 1946.

No early Christian writer mentions Acts until Irenaeus in 180CE. Burton Mack, Richard Pervo, and Joseph Tyson all date it around 110-120CE, as does the old Encyclopedia Biblica.

As G.A. Wells says, "One of Acts' overall concerns is to make clear that Christianity posed no threat to the authority of the Romans. Hence, although the author could not -- against the obvious truth -- conclude the book by having Paul set free from Roman captivity, he does his best to insinuate that this is what the Romans wanted."

So, "Luke" covers up the embarrassing fact that Paul was executed by the Romans as a troublemaker. He deliberately chose to end his book by discreetly specifying that Paul spent "two years in Rome ... no man forbidding him." Obviously "Luke" was aware there had been some change in Paul's circumstances after those "two years" were up (i.e. his execution). Luke also suppresses Peter's execution by the Romans for similar reasons.

Acts 16:10 - 13 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

Acts 20: 13 - 15 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene. And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus.

Acts 21: 1 - 8 And it came to pass, that after we were gotten from them, and had launched, we came with a straight course unto Coos, and the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara: And finding a ship sailing over unto Phenicia, we went aboard, and set forth. Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. And when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship; and they returned home again. And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Acts 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Acts 21: 14 - 17 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

Acts 27: 1 - 5 And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band. And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us. And the next day we touched at Sidon. And Julius courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself. And when we had launched from thence, we sailed under Cyprus, because the winds were contrary. And when we had sailed over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia.

Acts 27: 7 And when we had sailed slowly many days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone;

Acts 27: 15 - 16 And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive. And running under a certain island which is called Clauda, we had much work to come by the boat:

Acts 27: 18 - 20 And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they lightened the ship; And the third day we cast out with our own hands the tackling of the ship. And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away.

Acts 27: 26 - 27 Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain island. But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country;

Acts 27: 29 Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day.

Acts 27: 37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.

Acts 28: 10 - 14 Who also honoured us with many honours; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary. And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.

Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

------

These "we" and "us" passages in Acts indicate, although they cannot prove, that during much of his ministry St. Paul was accompanied by the man who wrote the book of Acts.

Even many non Fundamentalist scholars attribute Acts and the Gospel of Luke to St. Luke, who appears to have been a traveling companion of St. Paul. In the Epistle to the Colossians 4:16 St. Paul writes, "Luke, the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

In 2 Timothy 4:11 St. Paul writes, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible. For that same reason, Christians prefer early dates.

If the book of Acts was written by an eyewitness to many of the events, that eyewitness would not have had the incentive to wait decades to write it all down. He would have wanted to write it as soon as possible, when the events were still fresh in his mind, and when other eye witnesses also still lived. Please remember that the average life expectancy was much less then than now.

 

[fta]

These "we" and "us" passages in Acts indicate, although they cannot prove, that during much of his ministry St. Paul was accompanied by the man who wrote the book of Acts.

Even many non Fundamentalist scholars attribute Acts and the Gospel of Luke to St. Luke, who appears to have been a traveling companion of St. Paul. In the Epistle to the Colossians 4:16 St. Paul writes, "Luke, the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

In 2 Timothy 4:11 St. Paul writes, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible. For that same reason, Christians prefer early dates.

If the "Four Gospels" and Acts were written in the first century by disciples of Jesus, then why is Irenaeus, writing around 180CE, the first Christian writer to describe them and to name authors for them?

We won't go into the serious doubts over the authenticity of 2 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles, or the less serious doubts over Colossians. As to the "we/us" passages in Acts, Vernon Robbins put forward a theory that there was an ancient literary convention of describing sea voyages in the first-person plural even if the writer wasn't present. This theory doesn't seem to have attracted a lot of support though.

Others have suggested that the second-century compiler of Acts made use of a travel diary of a companion of Paul. As Walter Cassels wrote over a hundred years ago:

The author might also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to assume the character of eye-witness, and of companion of the Apostle. As we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to discredit such an explanation... Externally, there is no proof even of the existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second century, when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name and identity of the supposed author.

 

[Juma]

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible.

Not at all. The miracle stories would be totally implausable even if there stone proof evidens of them having beeing written before year 31.

You must be pretty indoctrinated to have any trust in the miracles.

 

[Trodon]

Rylands Library Papyrus P52

If the "Four Gospels" and Acts were written in the first century by disciples of Jesus, then why is Irenaeus, writing around 180CE, the first Christian writer to describe them and to name authors for them?

We won't go into the serious doubts over the authenticity of 2 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles, or the less serious doubts over Colossians. As to the "we/us" passages in Acts, Vernon Robbins put forward a theory that there was an ancient literary convention of describing sea voyages in the first-person plural even if the writer wasn't present. This theory doesn't seem to have attracted a lot of support though.

Others have suggested that the second-century compiler of Acts made use of a travel diary of a companion of Paul. As Walter Cassels wrote over a hundred years ago:

The author might also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to assume the character of eye-witness, and of companion of the Apostle. As we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to discredit such an explanation... Externally, there is no proof even of the existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second century, when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name and identity of the supposed author.

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[1] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

During the first century Amazon.com did not exist. Neither did Barnes & Noble. Books were slowly copied by hand on perishable material. As soon as the Romans began to persecute Christianity they destroyed Bibles as soon as they found them.

- - - Updated - - -

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible.

Not at all. The miracle stories would be totally implausable even if there stone proof evidens of them having beeing written before year 31.

You must be pretty indoctrinated to have any trust in the miracles.

I cannot prove that they happened or not. I do not know. I was not there.

 

[bilby]

If the "Four Gospels" and Acts were written in the first century by disciples of Jesus, then why is Irenaeus, writing around 180CE, the first Christian writer to describe them and to name authors for them?

We won't go into the serious doubts over the authenticity of 2 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles, or the less serious doubts over Colossians. As to the "we/us" passages in Acts, Vernon Robbins put forward a theory that there was an ancient literary convention of describing sea voyages in the first-person plural even if the writer wasn't present. This theory doesn't seem to have attracted a lot of support though.

Others have suggested that the second-century compiler of Acts made use of a travel diary of a companion of Paul. As Walter Cassels wrote over a hundred years ago:

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[1] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

During the first century Amazon.com did not exist. Neither did Barnes & Noble. Books were slowly copied by hand on perishable material. As soon as the Romans began to persecute Christianity they destroyed Bibles as soon as they found them.

- - - Updated - - -

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible.

Not at all. The miracle stories would be totally implausable even if there stone proof evidens of them having beeing written before year 31.

You must be pretty indoctrinated to have any trust in the miracles.

I cannot prove that they happened or not. I do not know. I was not there.

I wasn't there is a shithouse excuse for claiming not to know what happened; if we allow that excuse, then essentially you are claiming to know almost nothing about almost everything - Do you apply this standard to every other area of your knowledge - that if you didn't personally watch it happen, then you are clueless and can't make any judgement at all?

Did the Axis powers win the second world war? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Was last year's Kentucky Derby won by a cow? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Is there a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Did some itinerant preacher in the 1st Century break the laws of physics? I don't know, I wasn't there.

What a load of cobblers. If someone proposes a very unlikely historical event may have occurred, the appropriate answer is 'Prove it'. In the absence of very strong evidence, 'I don't know, I wasn't there' is a truly stupid response to a claim that the fundamental laws of physics were broken - of course it fucking didn't happen.

 

[fta]

Although Rylands {P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Yes, the Rylands Fragment is probably the oldest known "chunk" of the New Testament, and dates from an unknown time in the second century. What does this prove?

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

If their stories of Jesus being the son of God, working miracles, and rising from the dead to save us from our sins are mythical, then the fact that we have lots of copies doesn't make it non-fiction.

During the first century Amazon.com did not exist. Neither did Barnes & Noble. Books were slowly copied by hand on perishable material.

As G.W. Foote said, why didn't Jesus invent the printing press?

I cannot prove that they happened or not. I do not know. I was not there.

Are you an agnostic then?

 

[Trodon]

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[1] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

During the first century Amazon.com did not exist. Neither did Barnes & Noble. Books were slowly copied by hand on perishable material. As soon as the Romans began to persecute Christianity they destroyed Bibles as soon as they found them.

- - - Updated - - -

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible.

Not at all. The miracle stories would be totally implausable even if there stone proof evidens of them having beeing written before year 31.

You must be pretty indoctrinated to have any trust in the miracles.

I cannot prove that they happened or not. I do not know. I was not there.

I wasn't there is a shithouse excuse for claiming not to know what happened; if we allow that excuse, then essentially you are claiming to know almost nothing about almost everything - Do you apply this standard to every other area of your knowledge - that if you didn't personally watch it happen, then you are clueless and can't make any judgement at all?

Did the Axis powers win the second world war? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Was last year's Kentucky Derby won by a cow? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Is there a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Did some itinerant preacher in the 1st Century break the laws of physics? I don't know, I wasn't there.

What a load of cobblers. If someone proposes a very unlikely historical event may have occurred, the appropriate answer is 'Prove it'. In the absence of very strong evidence, 'I don't know, I wasn't there' is a truly stupid response to a claim that the fundamental laws of physics were broken - of course it fucking didn't happen.

The situations you present are not comparable. There is plenty of evidence from many sources that The Axis powers lost the Second World War, that last year's Kentucky Derby was not won by a cow.

I have not asserted that God exists. I have not asserted that Christianity is true if He does exist. I have presented reasons to believe that the gospels of Mark, Luke, Acts, and Q were written early enough so that eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus could have contributed personal accounts. At the same time I have acknowledged that as of yet we cannot know who wrote the Gospels and Acts. We cannot know when they were written. We cannot know where they were written.

 

[bilby]

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[1] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

During the first century Amazon.com did not exist. Neither did Barnes & Noble. Books were slowly copied by hand on perishable material. As soon as the Romans began to persecute Christianity they destroyed Bibles as soon as they found them.

- - - Updated - - -

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible.

Not at all. The miracle stories would be totally implausable even if there stone proof evidens of them having beeing written before year 31.

You must be pretty indoctrinated to have any trust in the miracles.

I cannot prove that they happened or not. I do not know. I was not there.

I wasn't there is a shithouse excuse for claiming not to know what happened; if we allow that excuse, then essentially you are claiming to know almost nothing about almost everything - Do you apply this standard to every other area of your knowledge - that if you didn't personally watch it happen, then you are clueless and can't make any judgement at all?

Did the Axis powers win the second world war? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Was last year's Kentucky Derby won by a cow? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Is there a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Did some itinerant preacher in the 1st Century break the laws of physics? I don't know, I wasn't there.

What a load of cobblers. If someone proposes a very unlikely historical event may have occurred, the appropriate answer is 'Prove it'. In the absence of very strong evidence, 'I don't know, I wasn't there' is a truly stupid response to a claim that the fundamental laws of physics were broken - of course it fucking didn't happen.

I have not asserted that God exists. I have not asserted that Christianity is true if He does exist. I have presented reasons to believe that the gospels of Mark, Luke, Acts, and Q were written earlier enough so that eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus could have contributed personal accounts. At the same time I have acknowledged that as of yet we cannot know who wrote the Gospels and Acts. We cannot know when they were written.

You asserted "I cannot prove that [the miracle stories] happened or not. I do not know. I was not there". This is a very stupid assertion; If it was not your intention to assert this, then you need to be clearer about what you mean, because that is the plain meaning of what you wrote.

It doesn't matter one whit whether any piece of text describing a breach of physical law is an eyewitness account; eyewitness accounts are piss-poor evidence of anything. They are insufficient evidence for a miracle even if they are direct and first-hand. I have seen a man saw a woman in half, without harming her; I have seen a man pull a rabbit from an empty top hat; I have seen many things that I know for sure didn't actually break the laws of physics, despite happening in front of my eyes.

The whole religion business relies on the fact that stupid people think that eyewitness accounts of impossible feats are worthy of consideration. They are not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have not asserted that God exists. I have not asserted that Christianity is true if He does exist. I have presented reasons to believe that the gospels of Mark, Luke, Acts, and Q were written early enough so that eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus could have contributed personal accounts.

But you also assert that people who prefer the later dates are motivated by the conclusions they want to draw, rather than the evidence.
Wouldn't this be even MORE likely in the case of the Christains who would want to be able to treat the gospels as eyewitness accounts or accounts with eyewitness sources?