tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post9103451161681095510..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Argument for Traditional Gospel AuthorshipKeith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-37248433157664327842019-04-05T12:51:34.532-05:002019-04-05T12:51:34.532-05:00Do you believe in climate change? The overwhelming...Do you believe in climate change? The overwhelming majority of scientists do. Some conspiracy theorists believe that this majority expert opinion on climate change is due to a bias. These conspiracy theorists believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are left wing fanatical environmentalists who have "cooked" the evidence. Climate change is not real, they say. It is the invention of biased scientists.<br /><br />The problem for conspiracy theorists is that not all scientists are left-wing environmentalists. In fact, there are plenty of scientists who are politically conservative. Yet even the majority of politically conservative scientists believe that climate change is real. The fact that the consensus position that climate change is real is held by scientists across the political spectrum is evidence AGAINST the conspiracy theorists' claim that climate change is a left-wing environmentalist lie.<br /><br />And we find the same situation with the authorship of the Gospels. Many conservative Christians believe that the majority expert consensus position that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses is based on a bias. These conservative Christian Protestants believe that the majority of New Testament scholars are liberals, atheists, and agnostics who are skeptical or deny all supernatural claims. The problem for this argument is that it isn't just liberal, atheist, and agnostic scholars who believe that the Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, in lands far away, several generations removed from the alleged events described in the Gospels. The overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars also hold the consensus majority position. Can anyone credibly claim that Roman Catholics have a bias against the supernatural?? No. So, what we find is that a broad range of New Testament scholars reject the traditional/eyewitness/associate of eyewitnesses authorship of the Gospels, including many scholars who very much believe in the supernatural and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This fact speaks against the conservative Protestant claim that the majority position on the authorship of the Gospels is based on a bias. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-39105227026645102122015-10-26T13:33:33.553-05:002015-10-26T13:33:33.553-05:00Thank you for answering my question. Much apprecia...Thank you for answering my question. Much appreciated. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18282981313345136885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-82515401570878285022015-10-24T01:01:48.719-05:002015-10-24T01:01:48.719-05:00Papias tells us that Matthew wrote his gospel in H...Papias tells us that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which is false. With that said, if the little bit of check able information in Papias tradition is false, I think it makes little sense to insist on trusting the rest. The tradition is further suspicious in light of information inside the gospels. For example, how could John Mark, a disciple of Peter, have painted him in such a bad light? Evangelicals often insist that the embarrassing material here proves the writer was honest, but in fact this shows Mark was a Pauline Christian, not a fan of Peter. The Pauline theory can claim, as evidence, marks use of Paul's lord supper vision. In addition, richard carrier has made the following observation that also supports this theory: Mark also knew Paul thought Peter was a weasel (Gal. 2:11). So we should expect Mark to depict him as such (Mark 14:30-72 passim).AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-86852293851452398602015-10-23T13:32:05.806-05:002015-10-23T13:32:05.806-05:00JD, thanks for the comment. I mentioned at the end...JD, thanks for the comment. I mentioned at the end that Guthrie indeed deals at length with the internal evidence. In most cases though, where that internal evidence is at odds with traditional authorship, he claims that it is not "conclusive." So, I do believe he uses external attestation as a "trump" card. I have not recently read Bird or Dunn on the topic, and so can't comment on them here. I will take a look at Bird and Dunn soon and post again if it is of interest. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-75866655087447244532015-10-23T11:11:35.026-05:002015-10-23T11:11:35.026-05:00I wouldn't say it's quite as simple as ...I wouldn't say it's quite as simple as 'nothing conclusively contradicts the external attestations'. A comprehensive case for traditional authorship would also try to establish that there are internal evidences consistent with the traditional authorship, and would also point to evidence from Paul and other sources that there was extensive communication between the early Christian communities and at least in some circles a concern for getting info 'from the horse's mouth'. There is also Mike Bird and James Dunn's argument that there is evidence for a 'conservative tendency' in the transmission of Jesus traditions, again at least in certain communities and circles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com