one MEEN Ag said:

---

You keep using this term independent verification but have to directly attest to what that actually is.

So for these other works that are independently verified, what does that even mean? Some other author quotes them? They have a PE stamp on them? Officially licensed by the NFL written at the bottom?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where this gold star
of verification comes from and why it's black and white.

---

It means we have other people attesting to the existence and authorship of the texts at the time they were composed or shortly after their publication. It means we can see discussions of the works or track their distribution and link it to the claimed authors. It can also mean if we have prior texts by one author we can link subsequent texts to the same author through analysis of the text (though this is less than ideal). There's nothing like this for the gospels. The first solid attribution of authorship that can be linked to the gospels we have doesn't come until 180.

Zobel said:

---

What's the earliest independent attribution of Herodotus?

Anyway this is boring. Have fun.

---

We have references to the Histories and Herodotus in Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Euripides, on a possible burial stone, and Thucydides. We also have evidence of public performances by Herodotus written at the time he performed them.

Sapper Redux said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You keep using this term independent verification but have to directly attest to what that actually is.

So for these other works that are independently verified, what does that even mean? Some other author quotes them? They have a PE stamp on them? Officially licensed by the NFL written at the bottom?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where this gold star
of verification comes from and why it's black and white.

---

It means we have other people attesting to the existence and authorship of the texts at the time they were composed or shortly after their publication. It means we can see discussions of the works or track their distribution and link it to the claimed authors. It can also mean if we have prior texts by one author we can link subsequent texts to the same author through analysis of the text (though this is less than ideal). There's nothing like this for the gospels. The first solid attribution of authorship that can be linked to the gospels we have doesn't come until 180.

---

So then I think its obvious why the earliest gospels would fail such a lofty but ultimately arbitrary standard. The apostles A) weren't publishers or B) a university seeking peer review. They were a group of people who spent time in direct contact with Jesus and then spread the message of a way of life through word of mouth, and ritual. The letters were received by believers and then read aloud and shared, but ultimately kept within the church. There wouldn't be a peer review of a gospel or circulated drafts. There wouldn't be outside input into perfecting this document that would leave a trace. By your standards the gospels couldn't have been independently verified until the church had a large amount of copies made and were publically disseminating them. So Christianity had to reach a critical mass to even appear on the historical radar.

Thats the whole point you're missing when Zobel (or any orthodoxy/catholic) talking about the church as a group having authority over the documents. The church was a group of people living faithfully first according to how Jesus prescribed, and then a source of documentation second. To demand finding the original letter of the gospels to even think about placing the gospels in the time of Jesus misses the mark about how the early church shared information.

Your standard has this black and white edge to it. We can apply a gold standard of authenticity at 180 as dictated by our modern standard of independent verification. There's a nuance lacking here that fails to ask how did the gospel get so widespread we can now see surviving documents? Whats the probability of any one document surviving?

Whats your take then Sapper, that someone made the gospels up at 180 and we have original copies that immediately reached veracity? Its pretty obvious the gospels had to have been written before jerusalem fell in 70AD. If it was after, it would have been a part of those accounts.

The destruction of the temple was a part of Mark, which served as the base for Matthew and Luke. It's pretty commonly accepted that the gospels were written in the last 20 or so years of the first century.

What I've used for verification isn't some impossible standard. There are internal and external measures for identifying or verifying authorship. There's also questions about literacy and the nature of the text that can help eliminate or strengthen certain theories.

The gospels don't stand up well to any of those methods. You specifically brought up external verification since we've been discussing it a lot. External verification does not require a text to meet modern standards of proof. It just means, is there external evidence of some kind for authorship and what is that evidence? We don't have strong external claims about authorship until 180. It doesn't mean the gospels were written in 179. It means we don't know who wrote them and no firm claim is made until 180.

Wolfe said:

---

So you believe the historical accuracy of the claim that a snake appeared to Eve and spoke to her? Or that Moses literally parted the red sea? Or that Jesus literally died and descended into hell before he came back to life?

There are a lot of stories in the Bible that no serious person could claim aren't myths or some great dramatization of actual events.

I only advised using sources other than the Bible itself to avoid circular logic. You can't tell me the Bible is 100% accurate and inspired by God then use that book as the sole and primary source. It's indisputable at that point.

If there are other historical sources that we can vet to gage the historical accuracy of the gospels then that would further strengthen the case for the historicity of the gospels.

I don't understand why that's hard to understand. It seems many in here get triggered immediately if I ask for an alternative source.

---

Take a step back. Why the incredulity at the content of stories? There is an infinite God who created everything. Why is it so hard to believe that A) creation when perfect in the eden had a creature that could talk? We have no insight into that age. B) that God could part the seas he made. C) That Jesus could overcome hell. The whole point of the bible is God showing His creation His story. The miracles are God showing authority and power.

Just as a heads up, you're not asking for a simple verification of the bible. You're asking for some other independent group to have played fact checker for thousands of years following the Jews and Christians around. Which doesn't exist. The inconvenient truth of historical documentation is that A) There are no unbiased writers. It costs so much to write back then you only wrote down what you cherished. B) A flat reading of history isn't going to tell the story of God like the bible is.

Take for example Hezekiah's defense of Jerusalem from the Assyrians. We have records from the Assyrians of them marching through the 10 northern tribes, sacking them and taking their gold. We even have record of Hezekiah paying a tribute to the Assyrians when they were outside of Jerusalem. But then Assyrian record stops.

Now read the jewish history. The Assyrians wiped out the northern tribes. Hezekiah paid a tribute to the Assyrian king to try to get him to leave. Hezekiah spent this whole time praying. God answered and said that the Assyrians would not touch Jerusalem. That night the Spirit of the Lord worked through the Assyrian camp and killed their soldiers. The remnants of the Assyrian army turned tail and went back to Nineveh, not touching Jerusalem.

So we have two sides of the same story here and good authenticity that the event actually happened. But people still hemm and haw about the jewish supernatural part here. 'Oh this isn't a sign of God, the jews could still be lying.' Or what you hear in historians, 'it was probably an outbreak of the plague.' Even the Assyrians wiping out the 10 northern tribes was God letting judgement happen to them because of their internally wicked ways.

The big point is that demand for extra-biblical verification of events always leaves out the whole 'God is in charge' part.

Aristophanes does not mention authorship and is a reference or allusion - or parody. Oldest manuscript of any of his work dates to the 10th century.

Sophocles addressed a poem to Herodotus and alludes to his work but we have no affirmation of authorship. And this work survives only in fragments. Oldest papyrus fragment is from 1st century BC. Manuscripts from the 10th century, maybe the 9th.

Euripides the same. Earliest manuscript around 10th century.

Thucydides is probably a response to Herodotus, but I'm pretty sure there's not direct quote or attribution of authorship. Earliest manuscript 10th century.

And keep in mind some of what we have of the above come to us only in quotes from other authors of the works (i.e., this would be a quote of someone quoting someone alluding to Herodotus).

As far as I know - and I'm an amateur - the earliest direct affirmation we have of Herodotus to Histories comes to us from Roman Imperial era Greeks.

Compare this to our ~100 year gap to St Irenaeus who presents them by name, clearly, and uses their names and that there are four as a central argument. It would do him no good if there were sometimes four and sometimes six or two, or if they weren't accepted under those names. Earliest manuscript dates to 400 AD.

Of course we also have the Muratorian fragment in the 2nd century (possibly earlier than Irenaeus), St Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century (via Eusebius around 313 with our earliest manuscript 462 AD). Eusebius also brings us other details quoting lost works such as Papias.

So again, we have more manuscripts, sooner, and sooner external direct references.


Edit to add. If the allusions to Herodotus in Aristophanes, Sophocles etc. count, or references where scholars say "he clearly has knowledge of Herodotus" then we absolutely should include the Epistles as witnesses to the Gospels.

Sapper Redux said:

---

The destruction of the temple was a part of Mark, which served as the base for Matthew and Luke. It's pretty commonly accepted that the gospels were written in the last 20 or so years of the first century.

What I've used for verification isn't some impossible standard. There are internal and external measures for identifying or verifying authorship. There's also questions about literacy and the nature of the text that can help eliminate or strengthen certain theories.

The gospels don't stand up well to any of those methods. You specifically brought up external verification since we've been discussing it a lot. External verification does not require a text to meet modern standards of proof. It just means, is there external evidence of some kind for authorship and what is that evidence? We don't have strong external claims about authorship until 180. It doesn't mean the gospels were written in 179. It means we don't know who wrote them and no firm claim is made until 180.

---

Sapper, this is what happens when you get non christians trying to read christian texts. Mark 13 talks about the impending destruction of Jerusalem. Its Jesus saying that the temple will come down. Not recording that it has come down.

13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Quote:

---

The destruction of the temple was a part of Mark, which served as the base for Matthew and Luke. It's pretty commonly accepted that the gospels were written in the last 20 or so years of the first century.

---

Not trying to pile on, but points like this get annoying. In the Gospels, Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple. Secular and liberal Christian historians don't believe in prophesy, so they automatically discount any accurate depictions of future events as evidence that the "prediction" was written after the fact. This is then used as some sort of conclusive evidence. Guess what? To Christians your argument makes no sense whatsoever. We believe in prophesy, so saying that accurate prophecy is really an after-the-fact-accounting-passed-off-as-prediction is insulting. It happens with the Gospels, the Torah, Daniel and a lot of other Scripture.

As far as I know, the only late authorship of any Gospel accepted by the Christian community is John, but we also have records that he survived to a very old age. And the date ~90AD still very much falls within his lifespan.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The destruction of the temple was a part of Mark, which served as the base for Matthew and Luke. It's pretty commonly accepted that the gospels were written in the last 20 or so years of the first century.

What I've used for verification isn't some impossible standard. There are internal and external measures for identifying or verifying authorship. There's also questions about literacy and the nature of the text that can help eliminate or strengthen certain theories.

The gospels don't stand up well to any of those methods. You specifically brought up external verification since we've been discussing it a lot. External verification does not require a text to meet modern standards of proof. It just means, is there external evidence of some kind for authorship and what is that evidence? We don't have strong external claims about authorship until 180. It doesn't mean the gospels were written in 179. It means we don't know who wrote them and no firm claim is made until 180.

---

Sapper, this is what happens when you get non christians trying to read christian texts. Mark 13 talks about the impending destruction of Jerusalem. Its Jesus saying that the temple will come down. Not recording that it has come down.

13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

---

And side note, this lack of understanding from Sapper regarding two lines of plain english prophecy (talking about a future situation and confusing it with describing a situation that already happened) makes me wonder whats behind all the handwaiviness discounting the gospels in Sapper's mind.

Sapper, would you like to submit what specifically about the 180 AD gospel reading makes it worthwhile as the gold standard of independent verification?

I believe the 180 date being thrown around is referring to the best estimated publication of St Irenaeus' Against Heresies.

Convenient how that prophecy works out, though there's no apocalypse that follows soon after as also claimed.

Quote:

---

we also have records that he survived to a very old age

---

What records?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Convenient how that prophecy works out, though there's no apocalypse that follows soon after as also claimed.

Quote:

---

we also have records that he survived to a very old age

---

What records?

---

Wait. Sapper do you think this was retconned? So not only are Christian's late to the writing party, you think they made it up?

Traditions are often a game of telephone. No one is lying, but reality got blurred several iterations earlier.

This discussion seems to miss the mark on what the scholarship view on gospel authorship has largely come to be and the history of how and why that's the case.

The gospel authors were taken for granted as being written by the associated names for a long time until examination of the internal evidence cast very large doubts on that assertion.

A similar process happened for claims of mosaic authorship and even some of the Pauline works.

The fact that there are so many copies of the NT allows for things to be revealed that would likely have been hidden if fewer documents were available- like the end of mark being a later addition.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Traditions are often a game of telephone. No one is lying, but reality got blurred several iterations earlier.

---

Now we are getting somewhere. Do you have any specific evidence that the gospel or new testament suffered from the telephone game beyond grammar and minor things. Jesus saying that the temple would come crashing down doesn't fit the form of textual error. And thats a low level claim by Jesus compared to telephoning the whole story of Him.

Do you think the telephone game wouldn't be as much fun if I A) studied for years about what was said and B) had the ability to write it down as well?

I ask, because every time we find some new discovery of a book of the bible it seems to affirm that A) copies were meticulously created B) and textual errors are a supermajority of grammatical errors or inconsequential. When comparing manuscripts its not a game of, someone wholesale made up Jesus dying, but its explainer sentences that make it from the margins into the text over hundreds of years (this is Tim Mackie's PhD on Ezekiel by the way).

I think a lot of modern scholarship misses the fact that most of our manuscript tradition comes to us from lectionaries. so "where does this particular bit of wording go" is a really different exercise in, say, the Pericope Adulterae than a passage of Julius Caesar.

Modern scholarship has also shown that cultures based on oral tradition and oral histories can transmit information reliably for multiple generations.

How Reliable were the Early Church's Oral Traditions? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

And, as the articles point out, skeptics assume that Israel at the time of Christ was largely illiterate. Growing archaeological evidence contradicts that assumption. In a culture where literacy is widespread, it is likely that multiple copies of the Gospels existed. So accurate transmission of the Gospels would be expected, rather than surprising. Additionally, by the time of the earliest Gospels of which we have physical copies, churches already existed around the entire Meditteranean and, from the writings of the Church Fathers, were using the Gospels in their services. No one said in 200 or 300 AD that these "new" Gospels, that Sapper and other skeptics claim had just been written, weren't the right Gospels.

To the contrary, from the very earliest, the best evidence we have is that the Church followed the teachings of the Gospels precisely. 1 Cor. 15 is acknowledged by all to have been a church creed that was developed within 2-3 years of Christ's death and resurrection. It and the Gospels are in accord 100%. So I don't know what Sapper and the skeptics hope to accomplish by denigrating the Gospels. They still have that Church creed which teaches of Christ's resurrection almost immediately after his death. That creed "proves" that the concept of Christ being the Son of God and that He rose from the dead was not a late invention.

And folks didn't start questioning the authorship of the Gospels or the Mosaic writings because of scholarship. Instead, when society started to turn away from Christianity and a belief in the divine, modern scholars gave them the rationalization that they desired.

Anyone who reads modern "scholarship", such as form criticism, on the authorship of the scriptures and doesn't see that it is total hogwash has no basis for casting skepticism on Christianity itself.

Quote:

---

Convenient how that prophecy works out, though there's no apocalypse that follows soon after as also claimed.

---

If it was written after the temple was destroyed, why include an apocalypse that never happened?

The second to last paragraph is flat wrong, inconsistent with the history of the scholarship and lays blame at the foot of secularism for discoveries and changes brought about largely by Christian's at seminaries in a much more religious world than today.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The second to last paragraph is flat wrong, inconsistent with the history of the scholarship and lays blame at the foot of secularism for discoveries and changes brought about largely by Christian's at seminaries in a much more religious world than today.

---

From my knowledge, which is limited, you're wrong. The Documentary Hypothesis is what got rolling all of the skepticism about authorship. It originated in Germany. Yes, many scholars at seminaries buy into it, but those are scholars who largely reject the Bible. Being a scholar at a seminary does not make one sympathetic to Christianity. Simply working at a Seminary does not make one a friend of Christianity.

Jabin said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The second to last paragraph is flat wrong, inconsistent with the history of the scholarship and lays blame at the foot of secularism for discoveries and changes brought about largely by Christian's at seminaries in a much more religious world than today.

---

From my knowledge, which is limited, you're wrong. The Documentary Hypothesis is what got rolling all of the skepticism about authorship. It originated in Germany. Yes, many scholars at seminaries buy into it, but those are scholars who largely reject the Bible. Being a scholar at a seminary does not make one sympathetic to Christianity. Simply working at a Seminary does not make one a friend of Christianity.

---

I don't think your knowledge exists at all based on your previous statement, or you are rather deliberately misrepresenting. Making such a strong claim with virtually no knowledge is a poor choice regardless. You are right it originated in germany in 1878 by a protestant Christian. Hardly a victim of modern secular thinking.

Quote:

---

yes, many scholars at seminaries buy into it, but those are scholars who largely reject the Bible.

---

I have no idea why you think this, what's your evidence for this claim?

Quote:

---

Being a scholar at a seminary does not make one sympathetic to Christianity.

---

While this is true, dedicating your life to studying the bible tends to attract Christians disproportionately, and particularly when we are talking over 100 years ago, the secular folks in such ranks hardly have the numbers.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad, do you have a specific knowledge set to back up your assertion besides just saying Jabin doesn't have any knowledge?

This line, 'it originated in germany in 1878 by a protest christian. hardly a victim of modern secular thinking.' belies that you might not know as much as you think you do here. An 1870s german protestant has way more in common with a modern western secular world view than 50AD middle eastern jew.

Protestant German biblical scholarship has done a number on how the bible is viewed, interacted with and studied.

---

If Jabin is trying to put the state of current scholarship at the feet of secularist then absolutely yes. It's simply untrue. Protestant German scholarship is protestant not secualr.

Quote:

---

An 1870s german protestant has way more in common with a modern western secular world view than 50AD middle eastern jew.

---

Literally anyone from the 1870s + has way more in common with a modern western secular world than a 50AD middle eastern jew. Don't you think it's nakedly disingenuous to portray protestants from 100+ years ago as modern secularists?

Jabin said:

---

You are displaying your ignorance of Christianity, particularly academic Christianity. You seem to think of Christianity as a monolithic whole. It is not.

---

Where did I claim this. You and Zobel as far as I'm concerned don't actually share a religion the beliefs are so different.

Quote:

---

For example, I met a woman a while back who was getting her ThD from SMU Seminary. She readily told me that she was a Wiccan witch and held the Bible in disdain. She would have in no way considered herself a Christain despite obtaining a terminal degree from a supposedly "Christian" seminary.

---

Cool. There are atheists, Mormons and jews you can find also.

Quote:

---

You make the common error of confusing academic status with factual accuracy. Very few scholars that I know of, and I've known several world-class scholars, make that error.

---

Where have I made that error. You are simply stating things confidently that aren't so.

Quote:

---

And, by the way, what is your expertise in Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, or the authorship of the various books of the Bible?

---

I've read a decent amount on it certainly far more than most, probably even including this board. But I've never been to seminary (a few on here have-and funny enough those are the ones that don't end up trying to contradict what I say) I'm certainly not an academic focused in the field and readily rely on their findings. What's yours?

Aggrad08 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad, do you have a specific knowledge set to back up your assertion besides just saying Jabin doesn't have any knowledge?

This line, 'it originated in germany in 1878 by a protest christian. hardly a victim of modern secular thinking.' belies that you might not know as much as you think you do here. An 1870s german protestant has way more in common with a modern western secular world view than 50AD middle eastern jew.

Protestant German biblical scholarship has done a number on how the bible is viewed, interacted with and studied.

---

If Jabin is trying to put the state of current scholarship at the feet of secularist then absolutely yes. It's simply untrue. Protestant German scholarship is protestant not secualr.

Quote:

---

An 1870s german protestant has way more in common with a modern western secular world view than 50AD middle eastern jew.

---

Literally anyone from the 1870s + has way more in common with a modern western secular world than a 50AD middle eastern jew. Don't you think it's nakedly disingenuous to portray protestants from 100+ years ago as modern secularists?

---

Just gonna pile on what Jabin says, but you don't know the first thing about Christian history. Go look at what German protestants rejected with Luther and then what worldview and scholarship has led to. Its not the religion of the apostles. And it has its roots in what was rejected in 1054 by the catholic church as the catholics added the filioque and claimed bishop supremacy and infallibility.

Its not nakedly disingenuous. Go talk to an orthodox priest and see what they hold fast to compared to what protestants claim to. Its eye opening.

Jabin said:

---

Wow, where to begin? You constantly misstate what I've said. You are not truthful.

---

No I don't. And this has always been an issue when speaking with YECs there is a prevalent vain of dishonesty that runs through entire organizations. You claimed the following and have done nothing to back it up, if you are telling the truth please substantiate the following, as usual you resort to name calling and never back up your claims:

Quote:

---

And folks didn't start questioning the authorship of the Gospels or the Mosaic writings because of scholarship. Instead, when society started to turn away from Christianity and a belief in the divine, modern scholars gave them the rationalization that they desired.

---

Quote:

---

yes, many scholars at seminaries buy into it, but those are scholars who largely reject the Bible.

---

Quote:

---

19th German scholarship was Protestant in name only. It paved the way and opened doors for modern secularism. Your denial of that fact displays your almost complete ignorance of the history of Christian "scholarship".

---

Look this simply isn't honest reasoning. Basically you are nakedly denying peoples professed beliefs with no basis. No one looking at your claims could come to the reasonable conclusion that the people you are referring to are self professed christians.

And I don't deny that the findings of many of these people came to support secular conclusions-in fact I state that all the time. I deny that they were people who rejected Christianity in search of reasons to reject it. This is your characterization and it's simply not evidenced.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Don't you think it's nakedly disingenuous to portray protestants from 100+ years ago as modern secularists?

---

You're the only one who's written those words. Are you so desperate to make your point that you have to misstate me?

---

Here are your words"

when society started to turn away from Christianity and a belief in the divine, modern scholars gave them the rationalization that they desired.

Quote:

---

Just gonna pile on what Jabin says, but you don't know the first thing about Christian history. Go look at what German protestants rejected with Luther and then what worldview and scholarship has led to.

---

You are actually describing Jabins own beliefs that's what so funny about this statement. He's a protestant.

Quote:

---

Its not the religion of the apostles. And it has its roots in what was rejected in 1054 by the catholic church as the catholics added the filioque and claimed bishop supremacy and infallibility.

---

Tell that to Jabin. I don't really care. But it's fundamentally dishonest to describe self-professed Christians as secular. You may think their religion is false, but it's still their religion.

Quote:

---

Its not nakedly disingenuous. Go talk to an orthodox priest and see what they hold fast to compared to what protestants claim to. Its eye opening.

---

Again, I agree that you and Jabin have a different faith. But neither of those faiths is secular.

https://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/finds/prism-translation.php

Here is the full translation. Hezekiah biblical account differs from the prism account.

Natural Law is the idea that our creator instilled in us the knowledge of the law.
We watch crime shows to satisfy our desire for justice, it is part of human nature.

Mores are social constructs that are set by society and change because it lacks a foundation of truth.

Moral Law is written by God and we break ourselves when we break it, we know it is wrong and we suffer the wrath of God in doing it.

Which law? Do we know slavery is okay if it follows certain guidelines? Stoning adulterers? "Natural law" is a vague cop-out. It's the sociological version of a God of the gaps argument in science.