Jump to content

Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rewrite of authorship section

[edit]

The authorship section was devoted almost entirely to the traditional view with hardly anything on scholarly views. I added a section for scholarly views, I revised the Christian-views section, and I added a very brief section on Muslim views (since we clearly value religious views as relevant). Here it is.

Christian views
By the second century there was a firm tradition associating each gospel to one of Jesus' apostles. Apostolic connection between the gospels and apostles was noted by numerous early church writers, such as Papias as well as Justin Martyr (c 100-165) who frequently referred to them as the “Memoirs of the Apostles." Justin also reports that these "memoirs" were read out at Sunday services interchangeably with the writings of the Old Testament prophets.[1][2][3]

The Christian authors of antiquity generally associated the gospels as shown on the table.[4]

Gospel Author and apostolic connection
Gospel of Matthew Saint Matthew, a former tax-collector, one of the Twelve Apostles.
Gospel of Mark Saint Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter, one of the Twelve
Gospel of Luke Saint Luke, a disciple of Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles
Gospel of John Saint John, one of the Twelve, referred to in the text as the beloved disciple

Muslim view
Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet who brought a written message to the faithful, but they consider the gospels to be corrupt.

Modern scholarly views
The four canonical gospels are anonymous, with no author identified in the text.[5] Scholars regard the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John[6] not to have been written by their reputed authors. Scholars are divided over whether Luke, a colleague of Paul, authored the Gospel of Luke.

For decades after Jesus' death, his followers spread his message by word of mouth. Eventually they began writing down the words and deeds of Jesus. Most scholars agree the Gospel of Mark was the first canonical gospel written (see Markan priority). It was composed about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in the year AD 70. This gospel is well-suited to a Roman audience, and the author may have been from Rome, where there was a large Christian community. The next canonical gospel was Matthew, written for a Jewish audience. The author used Mark for his narrative structure and added substantial teaching material from a now-lost source, known as Q. Matthew was followed closely by Luke, the most literary of the gospels. Like Matthew, Luke basically follows Mark's order of events and incorporates material from Q. Like Acts, the Gospel of Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' message. Finally, around the year AD 100, the "beloved disciple" or his students composed Gospel of John, possibly in Ephesus. The fourth gospel tells a much different story from that found in the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John is the only canonical gospel that identifies an author, described only as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Scholars speculate that he might have been a disciple from Jerusalem. (See also Authorship of the Johannine works.)

References

  1. ^ ”The Canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance”, by Bruce Manning Metzger, pg. 145 etc
  2. ^ Justin Martyr – Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CIII and Chapter CVI, among others
  3. ^ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.ciii.html
  4. ^ See the commentary by St. Augustine on hypotyposeis.org; also see the fragments in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1, 3.39.15, 6.14.1, 6.25.
  5. ^ Mack, Burton L. (1996), "Who wrote the New Testament" the making of the Christian myth" (HarperOne)
  6. ^ "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

Reference problem

[edit]

Anonymous authors

[edit]

This article uses Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels By David Oliver Smith as a source for the statement that The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD. The second reference on that sentence is without value as it says nothing of the kind, but Smith does in fact claim this on the page given. I was surprised to read this statement as I know of no such agreement amongst NT scholars. So I wondered where he got his information from. I want to know. He offers no explanation, no supporting data, nothing at all on how or when such a conclusion on such a controversial topic was reached. His only reference for this statement is to Randel Helms, a well known mythicist with an ideological axe to grind, and his book "Who wrote the Gospels?" which was published by the self-publishing Millennium Press in 1997. Helms has no data either.

I found one review of Smith's book, on page 167 of the journal "Religious Studies Review" at [1] which says Smith is unlikely to convince the jury of NT scholarship that his conclusions are established by even a preponderance of the evidence — to say nothing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith is a retired lawyer, and while this implies there is no actual consensus, it doesn't actually discuss any data either. Smith makes any number of sweeping claims and generalizations which should set off anyone's alarm bells that the author is heavily biased. I am concerned this is not a reliable source, and its claims are not verifiable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear anything I will remove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you disagree with? While the references may not be perfect, I think the consensus is pretty much that. The Gospels and Christian Life in History and Practice does clearly reference this chronology, but I can definitely quote Bart Ehrman's A Brief Introduction to the New Testament pp. 51 ff., for example, claiming that "most historians" consider those dates and pp. 62 ff. that "Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept" the tradition that the current titles confirm authorship and the fact that the texts themselves are anonymous. Qoan (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qoan Hi, thanx so much for responding. I do know there are plenty of quotable scholars like Ehrman who take this position on authorship. My problem is the idea that some agreement by a majority has been reached. I'd like more info on that, because I have seen nothing like that. Here is an article from Oxford Academic that says the topic has not even been studied much. [2] How is it that anyone can claim consensus? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will likely say that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. If one is an evangelical scholar, they will likely deny the claim of mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. for the Gospel of Mark:

Modern Bible scholars (i.e. most critical scholars) have concluded that the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author rather than by Mark.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] E.g. the author of the Gospel of Mark knew very little about the geography of Palestine (he apparently never visited it),[17][18][19][20][21] "was very far from being a peasant or a fisherman",[17] was unacquainted with Jewish customs (i.e. from Palestine),[20][21] and was probably "a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine".[22] Mitchell Reddish does concede that the name of the author might have been Mark (making the gospel possibly homonymous), but the identity of this Mark is unknown.[21] Similarly, "Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament".[23] The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus takes the same approach: he was named Mark, but scholars are undecided who this Mark was.[20]

References

  1. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 58–59. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples—Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple—and by two friends of the apostles—Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons.
  2. ^ Holman Reference Staff (2012). Holman Illustrated Bible Handbook. B&H Publishing Group. p. PT344. ISBN 978-1-4336-7833-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
  3. ^ Holman Illustrated Study Bible-HCSB. B&H Publishing Group. 2006. p. 1454. ISBN 978-1-58640-277-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
  4. ^ Easley, Kendell H. (2002). Holman Quicksource Guide to Understanding the Bible: A Book-By-Book Overview. Holman QuickSource. B&H Publishing Group. p. PT233. ISBN 978-1-4336-7134-0. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
  5. ^ Craig, William Lane; Lüdemann, Gerd; Copan, Paul; Tacelli, Ronald K. (2000). Jesus' Resurrection: Fact Or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (in Dutch). InterVarsity Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-8308-1569-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.
  6. ^ Jeon, Jeong Koo; Baugh, Steve (2017). Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemptive History. Wipf & Stock. p. 181 fn. 10. ISBN 978-1-5326-0580-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. 10. Just as historical critical scholars deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, so they also deny the authorship of the four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [...] But today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors.
  7. ^ E. P. Sanders (30 November 1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books Limited. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-14-192822-7. We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', 'according to Luke' and 'according to John'. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
  8. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
  9. ^ Nickle, Keith Fullerton (January 1, 2001). The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-664-22349-6. We must candidly acknowledge that all three of the Synoptic Gospels are anonymous documents. None of the three gains any importance by association with those traditional figures out of the life of the early church. Neither do they lose anything in importance by being recognized to be anonymous. Throughout this book the traditional names are used to refer to the authors of the first three Gospels, but we shall do so simply as a device of convenience.
  10. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (November 1, 2004). Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-0-19-534616-9. We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the "beloved disciple" (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them.
  11. ^ Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.
  12. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed. Oxford University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-19-971104-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences.
  13. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2000). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-19-512639-6. Retrieved 13 August 2023. We have already learned significant bits of information about these books. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns. The authors all wrote in Greek and they all used sources for the stories they narrate. Luke explicitly indicates that his sources were both written and oral. These sources appear to have recounted the words and deeds of Jesus that had been circulating among Christian congregations throughout the Mediterranean world. At a later stage we will consider the question of the historical reliability of these stories. Here we are interested in the Gospels as pieces of early Christian literature.
  14. ^ Boring, M. Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 522. ISBN 978-0-664-25592-3. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Beginning with Papias in the second century, a tradition developed in various forms that attributed the authorship of the Gospel of Mark to this John Mark, who had been the companion of both Paul and Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). In all its variations, the ancient tradition makes clear that Mark's Gospel was accepted and valued in the church, not because of its historical accuracy, but because it represented Peter's apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark itself makes no claim to have been written by an eyewitness and gives no evidence of such authorship. While most critical scholars consider the actual author's name to be unknown, the traditional view that Mark was written in Rome by a companion of Peter is still defended by some scholars who begin with the church tradition cited above and do not find convincing historical evidence to disprove it.6 For convenience, in this book we continue to refer to the Gospels by the names of their traditional authors.
  15. ^ Ray, Ronald R. (2018). Systematics Critical and Constructive 1: Biblical-Interpretive-Theological-Interdisciplinary. Pickwick Publications. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-5326-0016-6. Retrieved 15 August 2023. Authorship by an apostle was so unimportant to early recognition of a writing's authority that names of apostles (Matthew and John) or names of people thought to be associated with apostles (Mark and Luke respectively with Peter and Paul) were only attached to the four Gospels at the beginning of the second century, after those had gained recognition primarily because of churchly appreciation of their content. Having studied the content of John and Matthew, historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that the Hellenistic Fourth Gospel was authored by the apostle John, and widely doubts that the First Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew. That the author of Mark was Peter's associate also seems unlikely, since that Gospel is very Hellenistic and Peter—according to both Acts and Paul—was highly Jewish. Similarly, that the author of Luke was Paul's companion is most improbable, since Acts's accounts concerning Paul conflict much with what Paul's epistles report. Again, had any of the Gospels been written by apostles, why were their names attached so late?125 Nor would apostle associates have been apostles!
  16. ^ Which is not a new claim, see Foster, Douglas A. (2012). The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-4674-2736-4. Retrieved 15 August 2023. During this period Disciples scholars such as Willett began to study at interdenominational theological schools and secular universities, and for the first time the Stone-Campbell Movement engaged historical criticism as the primary perspective on biblical interpretation. While Campbell's "Seven Rules" had advocated a kind of historical criticism, traditional conclusions about authorship, date, and the nature of biblical documents had been assumed, so that no one in the first generation had supposed that the consistent application of Campbell's own principles would lead to results that challenged and overturned these conclusions. By the end of the nineteenth century, those who followed the critical method arrived at a new set of conclusions that made the Bible look entirely different. Among these new conclusions: the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but represented a long development within history, the prophets were not making long-range predictions about Jesus and the church, but spoke to the issues of their own time; the Gospels were not independent 'testimonies" that provided "evidence" for the historical facts about Jesus' life and teaching, but were interdependent (Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q"); also, the Gospels were not written by apostles and contained several layers of reinterpreted traditions.
  17. ^ a b Leach, Edmund (1990). "Fishing for men on the edge of the wilderness". In Alter, Robert; Kermode, Frank (eds.). The Literary Guide to the Bible. Harvard University Press. p. 590. ISBN 978-0-674-26141-9. 5. The geography of Gospel Palestine, like the geography of Old Testament Palestine, is symbolic rather than actual. It is not clear whether any of the evangelists had ever been there.
  18. ^ Wells, George Albert (2013). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-8126-9867-1. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Mark's knowledge even of Palestine's geography is likewise defective. [...] Kümmel (1975, p. 97) writes of Mark's "numerous geographical errors"
  19. ^ Hengel, Martin (2003). Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-7252-0077-7. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Furthermore, it is more than doubtful whether evangelists like Mark or Luke ever caught sight of a map of Palestine.
  20. ^ a b c Hatina, Thomas R. (2014). "Gospel of Mark". In Evans, Craig A. (ed.). The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Taylor & Francis. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-317-72224-3. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Like the other synoptics, Mark's Gospel is anonymous. Whether it was originally so is, however, difficult to know. Nevertheless, we can be fairly certain that it was written by someone named Mark. [...] The difficulty is ascertaining the identity of Mark. Scholars debate [...] or another person simply named Mark who was not native to Palestine. Many scholars have opted for the latter option due to the Gospel's lack of understanding of Jewish laws (1:40-45; 2:23-28; 7:1-23), incorrect Palestinian geography (5:1-2, 12-13; 7:31), and concern for Gentiles (7:24-28:10) (e.g. Marcus 1999: 17-21).
  21. ^ a b c Reddish 2011, p. 36: "Evidence in the Gospel itself has led many readers of the Gospel to question the traditional view of authorship. The author of the Gospel does not seem to be too familiar with Palestinian geography. [...] Is it likely that a native of Palestine, as John Mark was, would have made such errors?" [...] Also, certain passages in the Gospel contain erroneous statements about Palestinian or Jewish practices."
  22. ^ Watts Henderson, Suzanne (2018). "The Gospel according to Mark". In Coogan, Michael; Brettler, Marc; Newsom, Carol; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1431. ISBN 978-0-19-027605-8. Retrieved 13 August 2023. suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
  23. ^ Tucker, J. Brian; Kuecker, Aaron (2020). T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-567-66785-4. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament (Moloney, 11-12).

The four canonical gospels are anonymous and most researchers agree that none of them was written by eyewitnesses.[1][2][3][4] Some conservative researchers defend their traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons most scholars have abandoned this theory or support it only tenuously.[5]

References

  1. ^ Millard, Alan (2006). "Authors, Books, and Readers in the Ancient World". In Rogerson, J.W.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press. p. 558. ISBN 978-0199254255. The historical narratives, the Gospels and Acts, are anonymous, the attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being first reported in the mid-second century by Irenaeus
  2. ^ Reddish 2011, pp. 13, 42.
  3. ^ Cousland 2010, p. 1744.
  4. ^ Cousland 2018, p. 1380.
  5. ^ Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
Sources

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Then what do you have to say about this source published by CUP? Potatín5 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello tgeorgescu, I thought you might show up for this. All of your references reflect your opinion that if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will likely say that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. If one is an evangelical scholar, they will likely deny the claim of mainstream Bible scholars. I note that your list of references reflects that paradigm, in that, it excludes all of those you define as "evangelical". Beginning with the difficulty of determining who actually qualifies as "a mainstream Bible scholar", there is the fact that about 40% of material in the field of New Testament studies is published through universities and secular publishing houses, and another 40% comes through seminaries. Since many of those at universities are practicing Christians, and many seminaries are quite liberal, it is not simple or easy to know who might fit in your categories.
I am left with the sense that this is ideological and not factual, and that anyone who does not support Ehrman's view - who is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view - is identified as "evangelical" and therefore seen as justifiably excluded. Except it isn't justifiable. Biased writers should be excluded - I can go with that - but there's the rub, isn't it? Bias exists in both directions, and that doesn't seem to be recognized either by your statement or your list.
What I can deduce of your definition of "mainstream" and "evangelical" - which I am guessing at - assumes "evangelicals" and other conservatives are incapable of overcoming their biases to form unbiased conclusions and doing good scholarship, while also assuming all the other ideologies at work here are fully capable of overcoming theirs. That is a view that is both unfounded in reality and naive - and heavily biased itself.
I think we can all agree it's good to exclude bias and biased writers whenever possible. When that isn't directly possible, it's also good, though a lesser good, to neutralize bias by including both views. It's the wiki-way. I will give, quite willingly, on the exclusion of the fundamentalist fringe as too biased to be included as anything but a minority view - which isn't here btw. (If it were, that would exhibit a genuine commitment to neutrality.) And if your list of references included conservatives as well as liberals, and made an effort to avoid all those pushing an agenda, on either "side", I would also say neutrality has at least been attempted.
But this is the Russian judge at the Olympics consistently giving Russian contestants higher scores by accusing the other participants as just not being as good. It's a circular and biased argument that isn't really an argument. It's a position. And that is not Wikipedia's definition of neutrality anywhere you look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, as Ehrman himself admits, there are no unbiased people, those who pretend to be unbiased are self-deluded.
Second, the quotations above include conservative scholars, like the Holman bibles. You see, Holman is at odds with "critical scholars", but nevertheless knows what they say.
Third,

Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.

— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit
Fourth,

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
Fifth, see also Video on YouTube.
Sixth,

r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit

psstein • 16 days ago

Moderator MA I History of Science

I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.

Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.

Seventh, this is the true evangelical response to Ehrman, not from biased hacks who can't tell the truth: Responding to Bible Critic Bart Ehrman by Steve Gregg on YouTube. Gregg says that most of the points from Ehrman's early bestsellers were known and broadly accepted by scholars since before Ehrman was born. And were known to all evangelicals who did not cover their ears singing La, la, la, can't hear you. Conclusion: for educated evangelicals therein is nothing particularly new or disturbing.
Gregg says that Ehrman's acerbic fight against fundamentalist biblical inerrantism does not concern evangelicals, since for many decades evangelicals no longer believe in fundamentalist biblical inerrantism. According to Gregg, Ehrman's house is built on sand, i.e. upon the superstition of biblical inerrantism. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu First, as Ehrman himself admits, there are no unbiased people, those who pretend to be unbiased are self-deluded. Let's not just skim over that. It's an important point, an absolutely true one, and if we can all agree on that single truth, then we can move to the next question: what is the best approach to neutralizing those biases? Acknowledging them is an important first step, but it won't move us very far toward neutrality. What will?
Wikipedia's policy is helpful. It is about sources, quality sources that include those who disagree with us, and avoiding sources that are fringe, are dominated by their ideological view to the exclusion of other views, or are polarizing. This is the wiki-way. Let's do that.
Second, the quotations above include conservative scholars, like the Holman bibles. I don't think so Tim. First, the Holman Bible is not a good example of conservative "scholarship". It's not a good example of scholarship of any kind. It has all kinds of problems. The Holman Bible translates Micah 5:2 as saying that Christ’s origin is "from antiquity” - that Jesus had a beginning - which is Arianism for Pete's sake. John 1:14, and 3:16 simply leave out all recent discussion over "the only begotten" without even footnoting it. In I Samuel 6:19, the King James says 50,070 people died. Holman says that seventy of the city of 50,000 died. No other translation of the Bible agrees with this! Holman Bibles are not representative of quality conservative scholarship.
As for your only other example of conservative scholarship, who the Hell is Blomberg, and is he actually included in this article? Why? I am guessing he isn't a conservative scholar any more than Holman, but they are out there, (though they are not in this article).
One excellent conservative, an Oxford scholar as well known as Ehrman, is N. T. Wright. Wright would certainly question this claim of scholarly consensus as an overreach, and interestingly enough, as Wright understands Ehrman's view, he says Ehrman would as well. The truth is, most modern scholars have never asked the question of Gospel reliability, haven't studied it, and would never make such broad claims about it in such a wholesale manner. Contemporary scholars tend to study individual texts, or even individual words, and more focused, narrower concepts. How can there be a consensus on something they don't study?
All the rest of this response is on Ehrman. I am not attacking or defending Bart Ehrman's scholarship. My comment on him being the standard used to determine who should be included was about how polarizing he is. Your extensive response here proves that point. Look at all the time and space spent defending him.
It seems odd to me how quickly this defense of Ehrman moved into a condemnation of inerrancy. Inerrancy is a strawman. I don't believe in inerrancy, it's a twentieth century invention; the majority of scholars don't believe in inerrancy - conservative or evangelical or otherwise - and as far as I know, it is not broadly supported by anyone but a few fringe fundamentalists. So why bring it into this discussion and attempt to drown me in it? Because it's polarizing - like Ehrman. Instead of allowing ourselves to be pushed further apart by this non-issue, let's remember there are more choices available to us than the all-or-nothingism of unreliability or inerrancy. Those are not the only two options. The middle is statistically where "most scholars" actually land. The sentence in question should be removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is not ideology. It is: we have to render the mainstream academic POV, first and foremost.
AFAIK we weren't discussing the historical reliability of the gospels (in general). We were discussing whether the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous and written several decades after the death of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu we weren't discussing the historical reliability of the gospels (in general). We were discussing whether the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous and written several decades after the death of Jesus.

Well, we were discussing the validity of the claim that scholars agree on anonymity, but yeah, okay, you're right, we weren't discussing the entire article. So, back on topic.

The criterion is not ideology. It is: we have to render the mainstream academic POV, first and foremost. Oh, I agree completely, of course! You are absolutely right! Mainstream all the way! The ideology comes in with who is defined as mainstream, who is excluded, and why. And ideology is definitely present and interfering with neutrality. Let me demonstrate.

1) Here are some genuine Evangelical scholars who are still, genuinely, scholars doing what any fair-minded person would consider to be "mainstream" critical work. Bill T. Arnold, Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary; Linda Belleville, Professor of New Testament & Greek at Bethel College; Barry J. Beitzel, Daniel I. Block, Darrell L. Bock is a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany); Joyce Baldwin, Gregory Beale, Gary M. Burge, Philip W. Comfort, NT translator;  Peter H. Davids, Raymond Bryan Dillard, Norman Ericson, Mark D. Futato, Prof of OT at Reformed Theological Seminary; Robert P. Gordon, Robert Guelich, Fuller Theological Seminary, NT, George Guthrie, prof of NT at Regent College, Victor P. Hamilton , Harold Hoehner, J. Gordon McConville,professor of O.T. at the University of Gloucestershire; J. A. Thompson, Marianne Thompson, Hugh G. M. Williamson.

I checked, and Craig Blomberg is the only "evangelical" in this article, which is weird because you're right, he is less of a scholar and more of an apologist whose views are close to fringe. Why include him?

2) Here are some moderates, who are conservative on some things, liberal on other things, but are solidly mainstream: N. T. Wright, Donald Guthrie, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Frederic G. Kenyon, Alan Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, Harry A. Hoffner, Wayne A. Meeks, Michael R. Licona, Richard Bauckham, Paul Rhodes Eddy, Greg Boyd, Larry Hurtado, Daniel B. Wallace, Craig A. Evans, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Gregory Beale, Ben Witherington III, Michael Bird, Simon J. Gathercole, R. T. France, Raymond E. Brown, James Dunn, Martin Hengel, Chris Tilling, Richard B. Hays, Brant J. Pitre, D.A. Carson, Richard Hess, Bruce Waltke, John H. Walton, K. Lawson Younger Jr. and the incomparable John P. Meier. (Gerd Theissen goes in here somewhere.)

A few of these are referenced in this article - three - I think. I skimmed.

3) A list of quality "mainstream" academics will include many liberals and atheist/agnostics. Those on the left recognized as doing genuine scholarly critical work are, Bart Ehrman, Mitchell G. Reddish, David Oliver Smith, Marcus Borg, Johnnie Colemon, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Burton L. Mack, Barbara Thiering, Harold W. Attridge, Lloyd Geering, Stephen L. Harris, Robert M. Price, Karen Leigh King, Maurice Casey, James H. Charlesworth, John S. Kloppenborg, Andrew T. Lincoln, Thomas P. Nelligan, Steve Moyise, and James F. McGrath.

Several of these are referenced, and some are referenced multiple times, (and several of them espouse fringe theories like Blomberg, which isn't mentioned).

That's a preponderance of one set of views, which sure makes it look as if "mainstream" in this article is synonymous with "liberal". That's purely ideological, and that's a mistake. It misrepresents what is actually going on in the field, and it is not good for the encyclopedia.

That sentence is not a good sentence. There is no consensus among the majority in the entire field of mainstream scholarship. It doesn't exist. There is only consensus within the liberal echo-chamber. That sentence is not well-sourced and is not supported with any data. It should go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Seminar was WP:FRINGE by design. Some scholars associated with it are not fringe.
Robert M. Price seems to be fringe, and he is not a professor.
The bulk of "liberal" scholars are Christians and Jews, there aren't many atheists and agnostics among them.
There is an interesting blog article, wherein Ehrman reflects upon this question: https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/
Upon who counts as a "liberal Bible scholar" see Liberal Bible Scholars Are Lying!!! on YouTube
About McConville: "In a thoughtful essay, Gordon McConville has articulated the issue at hand. According to McConville, “Modern Old Testament scholarship has been largely informed by the belief that traditional Christian messianic interpretations of Old Testament passages have been exegetically indefensible.” And "It would be supremely regrettable for evangelicals to abandon messianic prediction for the sake of respectability in the academy or acceptance among critical scholars. Of course, we want to interpret the Bible correctly, but it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions to which critical scholarship subscribes. The Bible is inspired, and the authors of the Scriptures could indeed write a supernatural prophetic message that pointed to a Messiah who would come many hundreds of years later. Abandoning this conviction will bring the loss of one of the most potent arrows in our apologetic quiver." (cited from Michael Rydelnik's Messianic Hope). The point is: does that sound mainstream to you? To be sure, I don't know McConville's solution, or even if he offered any, but it does seem that he thought that "largely informed" constitutes a problem.
Don't like that Ehrman is the guide dividing mainstream from non-mainstream? Fine:

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings;

• The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered;

• The Bible is to be interpreted in its context:

✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time;

✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context;

✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others;

• The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense.

✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion";

✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);

✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective;

★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
So, I don't say that McConville should not be cited, but he should not be cited as an exponent of the mainstream academic POV (the voice of MBS).
Anyway, the point is: the chance of being taught that Mark wrote Mark in any major, mainstream university is close to nothing. Prove me wrong.
And if you want a rational reason why the gospels are not accurate history: "An omniscient third-person narrator is normally only encountered in works of fiction." (Dick Harfield, Quora). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu All this does is provide additional evidence of your personal biases - which are completely beside the point concerning the article. This does nothing to indicate your support of neutrality.
No, I agree, McConville should not be cited. I have not investigated him, or ever read anything by him, but I will take your word for his position which seems to advocate letting personal biases guide one's scholarship. That is insupportable. Are you familiar with the work of any of the other evangelicals? Perhaps simply a greater inclusion of those in the middle list would work.
:The bulk of "liberal" scholars are Christians and Jews, there aren't many atheists and agnostics among them. True - did I say something to contradict that? The point was that liberals, whatever kind, are heavily represented in this article. Do you disagree with that? Without going down the rabbit hole that anyone is lying, are you disputing that these scholars are liberals?
I am attempting to actually read and/or listen to everything you post me, but so much of it involves going down one rabbit hole after another that, it is very difficult to do and try to stay focused here. I will do my best. I read Bart's blog. I graduated from a religion department in a state school, and Bart's description was not my experience, so I started checking on his list of what "everyone" actually says.
I cannot do them all, but first in Bart's list is Florida State. Posted by Dr. Benjamin Murphy, for "Writing Papers for REL 2240: Approaching the New Testament as a Scholar" [3] he begins with how difficult it is to avoid preconceptions about the NT "if you are a Christian... and if you are not...". Being a critical NT scholar does not require or preclude one or the other - which was actually one of my points concerning who is "mainstream". So what does critical scholarship require?
"The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence". Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical. What is historical includes the ancient New Testament texts themselves. The assumption that The Bible is a collection of books like any others is a personal assumption, (reductionism), it is not a historical fact and cannot be considered a requirement for scholarship. McConville is right about that one thing: it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions in order to be a scholar. It's just necessary to set aside your own.
I wholeheartedly agree to what Dr.Murphy writes. I also agree with his discussion of not pretending there is consensus where there is ongoing dispute. Nobody can prove authorship of the gospels - that they were ever seen as anonymous or that they were definitely written by those represented in the NT - and that is actually where the discussion is, and has been, and will probably stay forever, simply because there is insufficient historical evidence to confidently land either way. A conclusion can only be reached based on previously held biases. That's what we have in this article.
I have spent two hours looking for any of these schools having posted a public 'position' on the authorship of the gospels. I went to a secular State University and was taught that it is most likely that Mark did write Mark, that the weight of what little historic evidence exists is in that direction, but that it is not "provable" one way or the other. Nothing more has been discovered since as far as I know.
Back to the point: The source for the sentence is questionable. It is without support. It claims consensus where there is dispute. The whole article is magnificently one sided, but regardless, that one sentence really takes the cake. It needs to go. One sentence George. Just let it go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bowen's point from the YouTube video is: if God wants to use a collection of books like any others to transmit theological truths, then so be it, but such claim lies beyond what historians can and do investigate.
About it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions: historians (even Bible-believing Christians) work with methodological naturalism (going by what they write about the American Civil War, WW1 and WW2). There is no way to explain why the God of Oneness Pentecostalism would do miracles to help the Trinitarians. That's why historians never posit miracles as objective historical facts, asking that it would be only allowed for the Bible is special pleading.
Since they signed up for the job "historian", they have to obey methodological naturalism. Since they claim to be writing history, they have to obey certain rules of the game.
And the Holman bibles are not mainstream scholarship (I never said they were), but they were led by a top arch-conservative Bible scholar, with impeccable credentials among the Southern Baptists. That is both Edwin Blum and Kendell H. Easley are Bible professors (full professors).
A quick overview of the matter is available at https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/ For the conservative evangelical POV, see https://ehrmanproject.com/did-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-actually-author-the-gospel-accounts (such POV isn't the mainstream academic POV). Ehrman's reply to such arguments: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-called-matthew-mark-luke-and-john/
And you should know that in 99% of the cases when The Ehrman Project says "Ehrman", you may safely replace Ehrman with MBS.

Authorship, Date, and Historical Context Mark was written anonymously. The designation “according to Mark” was added in the second century ce, as Gospels began to circulate beyond the audiences for whom they were written. One early second-century source claims that “Mark” was the apostle Peter’s “interpreter” at the end of Peter’s life, but no other evidence confirms that connection. Others have identified Mark as the “John Mark” who traveled with the apostle Paul (see Acts 12.12,25; 15.37–39; Col 4.10; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24), but none of these passages link John Mark with a written Gospel. Though the author’s identity is unknown, scholars find clues about its author in the Gospel itself. For example, its awkward style suggests that Greek was not the author’s first language. Other details, such as the imprecise citation of Jewish scripture (1.2), the over-generalized portrait of Jewish practice (7.3–4), and problematic geographical details (5.1,13) suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine. The Gospel appears to address a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles who faced persecution because of their devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the long-awaited Jewish messiah. Early church tradition saw ties to the Christian community in Rome, where Nero punished Christians as scapegoats for the fire in 64 ce, which raged for nine days and devastated much of the city (see Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Most scholars today opt for a different context in the same time period. They argue that specific details in Mark 13.9–13 are better suited to a setting in Syria-Palestine, where Jesus’s followers may have been hated by both Jews and Gentiles for not taking sides, in the Jewish War (66–72 ce).

— Suzanne Watts Henderson, THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE Fully Revised Fifth Edition New Revised Standard Version, p. 1431
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing the line: I have provided several WP:RS/AC claims from both enemies and friends of Ehrman, including Ehrman himself. That would be enough for any Wikipedia article. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errata: Lindars and Court speak only of the Gospel of John. Their WP:RS/AC claim is accurately rendered, except it only concerns one gospel. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu Once again you post on a position of personal opinion that is not pertinent. We are not discussing the claim of anonymity. We are discussing the sentence that claims there is a consensus in the field, and since religious studies actually encompasses several fields of study, that is a very broad claim without adequate support either in this article or in reality.

I am confused about how Bowen's assertion has anything to do with the discussion here as well. Looking back over this, I am struck by how much time and space in this long discourse has been about you 'proving' the veracity of your personal views, when the only question that matters is your ability to write neutral material in spite of your views. But then I keep asking questions you don't answer while instead writing on things that are not in any way pertinent. (For example, who, and where, did anyone ask that miracles as historical fact would be only allowed for the Bible? But it doesn't matter. It's just another rabbit hole like most of the rest of this.)

I am afraid you have extended methodological naturalism beyond its intent - or actual application - and stretched it into philosophical naturalism. A theist can adopt naturalism as a method without accepting it as a philosophy.[4] Methodological naturalism simply confines itself to natural explanations. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. The key point here is that science, because of MN, is entirely neutral to God. Questions about His action and design are outside its domain. MN makes no assumptions about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and if you are making those assumptions, then you have reached beyond method and moved into philosophy.

Scholars of religious studies do not agree on whether or not methodological naturalism is even a predominant view in the field - nevertheless the kind of requirement you seem to see it as: Since they signed up for the job "historian", they have to obey methodological naturalism. Here is a 2018 collection of essays that indicate how deeply the disagreement over MN goes.[5] The field of religious studies is highly divided over the legitimacy of the kind of reductionism that MN requires. There are those who see MN as the only legitimate approach, and others who see its necessary reductionism as fundamentally misconstruing what it studies. The point here is that MN is not seen as the universal requirement you seem to think it is.

You offered the Holman Bible as an example of including conservative scholars, but it is a bad example. The Southern Baptists bought and paid for their own translation. Above, you said The Jesus Seminar was WP:FRINGE by design. Some scholars associated with it are not fringe. So use the same standard: even if it was led by a top arch-conservative Bible scholar, with impeccable credentials among the Southern Baptists that doesn't make the product something worth citing here on WP. There are better examples of conservative scholarship.

Ehrman's position has been noted. He is one of the many liberal scholars quoted in this article. I have made no objection to that beyond using him as the measure of who qualifies as mainstream. Please find another source for the claim of universal agreement in the contested sentence - w/o using Ehrman's blog or Youtube - or let's agree to remove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That many quotes do agree with my own views: it's true, but irrelevant. I'm not an author of WP:RS, so I never WP:CITE my own views for making WP:RS/AC claims. That the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous is the mainstream academic POV (I don't say that every scholar has to agree with the mainstream academic POV). There is a reason why many people ignore it, and the reason is rendered in the following quote:

As a young student, I heard a series of lectures given by a famous liberal Old Testament theologian on Old Testament introduction. And there one day learned that the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy) had not been written by Moses—although throughout it it claims to have been spoken and written by Moses himself. Rather, I heard Deuteronomy had been composed centuries later for quite specific purposes. Since I came from an orthodox Lutheran family, was deeply moved by what I heard—in particular, because it convinced me. so the same day I sought out my teacher during his hours and, in connection With the origin of Deuteronomy, let slip the remark, "So is the fifth book of Moses what might be called a forgery?" His answer was, "For God's sake, it may well be, but you can't say anything like that."

I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.[1]

— Gerd Lüdemann
So, despite your protestations, I never regard myself as an authority in this field.
About There are better examples of conservative scholarship: I do agree that the Southern Baptists are extremely conservative, but sometimes very biased sources may be cited, see WP:BIASEDSOURCE.
And I have cited two WP:RS which defend the Markan authorship, but are prepared to settle for homonymous book instead of orthonymous book.
Consensus is not unanimity: what you point out is that there are some dissenting freaks who cannot answer questions like:
  • why there are no miracles in the American Civil War?
  • why there are no miracles in WW1?
  • why there are no miracles in WW2?
And the straightforward answer is that if a historian posits a real (paranormal, supernatural) miracle during any of these wars, his peers will think that he lost his mind. And there is no neat way of allowing the miracles performed by angels, and denying the miracles performed by leprechauns: perhaps the resurrection of Jesus was a miracle performed by a leprechaun, in order to spread false religion.
Speaking of WP:RS/AC claims, above there are given 28 references. You should count how many of those references actually make WP:RS/AC claims about the authorship of the NT gospels. And there is no mention of ehrmanblog.org or YouTube among them. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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
From Columbia University: https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/new-testament/context (yup, Columbia trusts Ehrman to say it as it is). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"of allowing the miracles performed by angels, and denying the miracles performed by leprechauns" I always thought that leprechauns, fairies, and other such creatures are more believable than angels, because their stories do not involve direct interactions with deities or any real contradiction to historical narratives. Angels and pseudo-prophecies such as those featured in the Book of Daniel are far more outlandish. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So here again, we have a quote on how most Christians may - or may not - feel about critical scholarship, which is not only not based in reality, but also has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. The Holman Bible is no longer in the text, so there goes one of two poor references thankfully, but why? And I want you to note that I have studiously avoided offering any discussion of anonymity, because that is not the issue with the sentence in question.
This is, again, off point, but I can't help myself: Consensus is not unanimity: what you point out is that there are some dissenting freaks who cannot answer questions like: why there are no miracles in the American Civil War? why there are no miracles in WW1? why there are no miracles in WW2? How do you know there weren't? Have you researched it? I just googled miracles in WWII and found a bunch of websites. I didn't read them. I just noted that they are there, contrary to your claim. Likewise for the other two wars. And really - dissenting freaks? Is that what you want to go with here? I asked yesterday and ask it again: who and where has anyone advocated bringing in miracles? Traditional authorship of the gospels does not require miracle, so this is so far off the point that I can't begin to see why this is here. Why bring this up? I'm sincerely asking. It seems like a huge rabbit hole to me.
If you are going to bring up Catholics as a "proof" - beyond the fact that they make up 50% of Christians worldwide - some care should be taken not to base claims on assumptions, which is something that keeps happening here. But I am not going down that rabbit hole other than to comment on the fact it is yet another rabbit hole.
We don't get to decide if anonymity is correct or not. I am not going down that rabbit hole either.
My complaint is and always has been only about the claim there is consensus in the field. IMO, that consensus doesn't exist without arbitrarily defining the "field" to exclude everyone but liberals. Dismissing all scholarship from conservatives out of hand, as not objective and outside the mainstream, is a severe version of the genetic fallacy. A few on the liberal side of things have supported the traditional authors of the gospels, but I would - if I were asking - ask for a well-sourced discussion of the support for tradition as a minority view (except on Luke, where opinion is fairly evenly split) - if we were discussing anonymity itself. Which we are not. It's about consensus.
Which of those 28 references are about consensus? Which of them find that consensus among ALL scholars in religious studies including respected conservatives? Any? I didn't find any. But perhaps I missed it.
Let's stop presenting personal views, or even the personal views of others, on subjects that are off topic. Is there a source that includes the actual majority of critical scholars of all stripes that says there is a consensus on anonymity? That's all I want to know. I can't find one. Can you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the quote from Lüdeman is in a book of debate between him and Dr.Craig, and Craig's response is not included here. Presenting one side of the debate just keeps happening here. How does that evidence a support of neutrality? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Lüdeman, and Ehrman, and others made WP:RS/AC claims. Of course, they do not include "every scholar out there", but sometimes tell us who is part of this consensus.
And here is Witherington, telling us that most scholars consider that the Gospel of Matthew is truly anonymous, but he disagrees with most scholars: Witherington, Ben (2 June 2004). The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci. InterVarsity Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8308-3267-5. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then instead of a broad sweep and an unsupported claim of consensus, let's get more specific and use better sources. How about a couple of sentences - maybe a paragraph - noting what most scholars think of the authorship of each gospel, and what the minority view is, including that scholars are pretty evenly divided on the author of Luke. (They are also evenly divided on the historicity of Luke and Acts, and have been for decades and will probably remain that way.) There is new research showing that Christians were being exiled from synagogues before the fall of Jerusalem, which undermines the primary reason for dating John to 85 or later. This sentence claims as "closed" much that is actually still being researched and debated, and that misrepresents the current state of things. We can do better. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is much research on the bleeding edge, but Wikipedia is inherently mainstream academically conservative. Today's academic consensus might be regarded as folly 50 years later, but since we don't know how it will be, we just stick to today's academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Craig, William Lane; Lüdemann, Gerd; Copan, Paul; Tacelli, Ronald K. (2000). Jesus' Resurrection: Fact Or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (in Dutch). InterVarsity Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-8308-1569-2. Retrieved 13 August 2023. I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.

Arbitrary break

[edit]

tgeorgescu this has gotten too long to follow properly so I have created an arbitrary break.

I have never suggested anything other than that we stick to today's academic consensus, however, I have asked repeatedly that you show with quality sources that there is such a thing as a consensus on a matter that has been highly disputed. When did this dispute end? How? What new historical discoveries closed what has been an open disagreement for decades? If this claim of consensus is accurate, this should be easy enough to source. It hasn't been. Instead, in an attempt to support the "idea" of consensus, you have cited the "majority of mainstream scholars", except this relies on positing a definition of what is a "mainstream scholar" which seems based largely on Ehrman's personal opinion rather than any objective standard. I would actually be willing to accept "the majority of mainstream scholars" (with a slight restatement of the text) except for the fact that "mainstream" has been defined - redefined - in an arbitrary manner, so that an entire group of critical scholars have been omitted from this article - not because of their scholarship or lack of it, but because of their POV.

But POV is not what makes a scholar a scholar. Method is what makes a scholar a scholar. Remember what Dr. Murphy at Florida State wrote? The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence". Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical. If a researcher does this, and they are published and reviewed by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then they are "mainstream scholars". Mainstream is not defined by whether their ideas or views on any particular topic are in the majority or in the minority. That is unarguably WP's standard.

Taken from WP:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias... Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:...
Avoid stating opinions as facts... Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts...
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained...
...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ... Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.

Let's do stick to today's academic consensus but first, let's show there actually is one. The only consensus I find is inside one group while ignoring the other groups. Mainstream scholars are conservatives, liberals and moderates, and as far as I can source, the indication is that there is no consensus among them on this particular topic. There hasn't been consensus, and no new research or historical finds have presented themselves as prominent enough to change that - that I know of. Please point me toward a valid source if I am wrong. Otherwise, take the sentence out. There really is no other choice. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:RS/AC has been satisfied multiple times. And the Holman bibles are useful to tell us who is part of this consensus, i.e. "critical scholars".
I am not opposed to rendering other POVs, just that we have to abide by WP:RS/AC. I will ask someone more experienced to sort this out.
I am not a Bible scholar, in Bible scholarship I am merely a simpleton. So, besides those WP:RS/AC claims and other information provided at #Reference problem, I cannot provide an in-depth analysis of who is part of the consensus, what bleeding edge research is saying, how the Gospel of John could get redated (or fail to get redated), how the academic consensus could change in the next 5-10 years, and so on. That would be above my "pay grade". But generally speaking, very conservative scholars are clutching at straws they hope each time to convince the academic mainstream, and in the past failed every time to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh they can all get redated, and have, and no doubt will again as new research and discoveries are made. Much of the current view depends upon very thin, shaky ground, and one good study can overturn everything. I look forward to conversing with your more experienced friend. Thank you for all the time and effort you have put into this. I appreciate that you have, for the most part, stayed calm and reasonable. I value that. Until we meet again, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting on that expert. I still intend to remove that sentence if I don't hear more. It is not a good source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777, I have a PhD in biblical studies. Does that make me an expert? StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had asked the admin Doug Weller, who knows a lot about "archaeology and the Bible", but he told me he does not know much about "the Bible and the Bible". tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm late to this conversation, but if there is a consensus among modern critical scholars then the article can and should say that. But we should not confuse "scholars" and "critical scholars". Holman, Easley, Jeon, Boring, etc. are all referring to a consensus among critical scholars - I don't think we can go further than that, whatever Ehrman says. StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But even then, they're not actually using the word "consensus". I don't think we can say much beyond "most critical scholars". StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also late to this conversation. The statement in question: "The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD." Where "they" are the canonical gospels. I note btw that "critical scholars" has a specific meaning (see Historical criticism and Textual criticism) of those studying the history of texts and the contexts (e.g., time, place, group) in which they were written. In using the word 'critical' care should be taken to identify what it means. From the viewpoint of most academic scholars, critical scholars are the experts on determining when and where a particular text was composed.
I also note that if we look at a tertiary source such as Britannica (very much aimed at a lay audience) it has "presumably" 60s CE for Mark with "Most scholars agree that it [Mark's gospel] was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in composing their accounts". For Matthew "probably sometime after 70 ce". For Luke "many date the Gospel to 63–70 ce, others somewhat later". For John "many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, about 100 ce".
A different tertiary source would be a textbook (Martin, Ralph P.; Toney, Carl N. (2018). New Testament foundations: an introduction for students. La Vergne: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-5326-6828-9., chosen in part because one of the authors is associated with a somewhat conservative institution) which for Mark has "The majority of scholars today would date Mark's composition between 65 and 75 CE, while only a few exceptions date Mark as early as 42 CE and as late as the second century. The critical question regarding Mark's date has been whether it should be placed before or after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE" (ch. 12). For Matthew "A date in the period of 80-100 CE seems safest" (ch. 13). For Luke "However, we find solid evidence for the earliest possible date ... by its references to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE" (ch. 14). For John "This evidence leads to most scholars favoring 100-110 CE as the latest date" and "we would favor the Fourth Gospel as being the final canonical Gospel composed and having a date of publication anywhere between 85-100 CE with the date most likely toward the turn of the century" (ch. 15). Erp (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777: do you actually have sources, with quotes, which say there is no consensus on the anonimity of the authorship of the gospels? tgeorgescu has provided ample sources + quotes; you have mostly provided your personal opinions on which scholar belongs to which tradition, but not provided any source which says there is no consensus on the authorship of the gospels. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan, which reference are you using to say there is a consensus? StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had already taken it to WP:DRN. The sources are available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. WP:RS/AC does not speak only of "consensus", it might also mean "majority" or "most scholars", in this case "most critical scholars". tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the straight dope: Valantasis c.s. do not say (at that page) that the NT gospels are anonymous, and Smith was considered a bad book by its only review I could read.
So, the discussion isn't about Smith and Valantasis c.s., it is about the other sources listed there. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another straight dope: by WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority" (1 RS). There are other WP:RS/AC claims which are not overt, but implicit, e.g. Ehrman (2004, The New Testament) and Lüdemann. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: did I say there is? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of my take at WP:DRN

The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.[1][2]

I have given multiple WP:RS/AC-compliant WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. She claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind. Neither is she convinced by Witherington, who shares her POV, but actually agrees with my WP:RS/AC claim (in respect to the Gospel of Matthew).

The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). Please tell us if these fit WP:RS/AC or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 19.
  2. ^ Smith 2011, p. 7.

David Oliver Smith as a source and the other Smith

[edit]

I don't think David Oliver Smith 2011 should be used as a source for claims that should be easily sourced in more reliable works. In addition there are two distinct Smith's in the Bibliography with the other one being Ian K. Smith 2010 whose work, at a brief glance, seems more in the academic mainstream. It would be incredibly easy to get the two mixed up so I would suggest initials be included. --Erp (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

[edit]

[6] Resolution at the dispute notice board has concluded the disputed source should be removed. If a better source for "consensus" can be found, it can certainly be added back in at any time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M. David Litwa - "mythic historiography"

[edit]

@Divus303: what I don't understand is why you removed the sentence "It was a popular genre in contemporary Mediterranean elite literary culture, which tried to rationalize traditional myths." diff. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I moved the citation itself to the paragraph listing different scholarly opinions, it would be better to break it down so as to keep it in balance with the others, not make the paragraph too blocky, and also because the sentence I removed seemed to have just been an expansion of the first sentence ("where miracles and other fantastical elements were narrated in less sensationalist ways"). Divus303 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources Re: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity" and "almost universal assent"

[edit]

Someone arguing for historicity of unicorns can't be used as a source regarding claims about universal agreement on historicity of unicorns.

Bart Denton Ehrman is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, who literally wrote a book claiming historicity of Jesus - "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.

Full title of cited book is "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" - i.e. it is of the same value for proving historicity of Jesus as Action Comics #1 is for proving the historicity of Superman. A circular citation.

Richard Alan Burridge is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a Church of England priest and a biblical scholar whose doctoral thesis claimed that Gospels are biographies and not "writings which reflected the faith and life of the post-Easter church". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.

Graham Gould is a freelance lecturer and writer in theology and a co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies. NOT a "scholar of antiquity". NOT an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.

Further, phrase "almost universal assent" is the same as saying "nearly always agreeing on". Which is fine if we're talking about favorite flavors of ice cream - not on central tenets of a religion and the reliability of its supposed historic origins. Phrase "rarely questioned" would have the same objective value - but it would be literal weasel wording. Both phrases imply agreement where there is, clearly, none.109.175.105.124 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not dictate our WP:RULES. We have rules such as WP:IRS and WP:RS/AC. All Wikipedians have to obey the WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Both phrases imply agreement where there is clearly, none" is incorrect. Virtually all current or recent scholars of antiquity agree that "Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea". Note antiquity is a broad term and would include Classics, Biblical Studies (in the academic sense), and Ancient History (European/Middle East). Ehrman, Burridge, and Gould are all academically trained with PhDs in relevant fields from respected institutions. As is Grant (except he seems not to have gotten a PhD and jumped straight to a Litt.D.). All have published with respected academic presses (and the Journal of Theological Studies is put out by the Oxford University Press). As fairly prominent people in the field, if they made an error in describing their own field's consensus, one would think that would be fairly rapidly corrected by others in the field and you could find those corrections. Erp (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Allison

[edit]

@Silverfish2024: you keep pushing the particular views of Dale Allison diff; why? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been trying to add Dale Allison's claim that the Gospels were meant to present memory rather than create theological stories, whether successful or not. As one of, if arguably not the, premiere New Testament scholar in North America today, his view should be expressed and not downplayed. He does not say the Synoptics "may have thought" they were reconfiguring memories but that his study shows so, and that his view is conventional. One is free to check his book Constructing Jesus should you not trust my paraphrase or quote.
In addition, it is rather odd that Lamar Williamson's 1983 claim about consensus is claimed to represent consensus "today". I also doubt a conservative scholar Craig Blomberg would assent to the claim that the Gospels are theological, rather than historical, works, though I have not checked his or Bellinzoni's work. Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allison claims his views are conventional; it is not just his idea. In addition, Allison has been recognized as one of the best scholars of the Gospel of Matthew in America and perhaps one of the best overall by scholars including D. Moddy Smith (George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Duke University) and Scot Mcknight (professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary). Constructing Jesus has been praised by a slew of other leading scholars in the field from Paula Fredriksen to James Dunn to Larry Hurtado. I cannot think of many works regarding the Historical Jesus that would be more worth citing than this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You first changed diff

The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[1] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[2][3] Nevertheless, they preserve sources that go back to Jesus and his contemporaries. [4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Eve 2014, p. 135.
  2. ^ Bellinzoni 2016, p. 336.
  3. ^ Blomberg 2009, p. 97.
  4. ^ Reddish 2011, pp. 21–22.
  5. ^ Sanders 1995, pp. 4–5.
  6. ^ Nolan, Albert (2001). Jesus Before Christianity. Orbis books. p. 13. ISBN 9781626984929.

into

The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts,[1], and it is possible the Gospels are creative theological constructs, though conventionally the Synoptic writers are viewed as presenting memories of Jesus rather than creating new stories. [2][3][4][note 1] Nevertheless, they preserve sources that go back to Jesus and his contemporaries. [5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ Eve 2014, p. 135.
  2. ^ Bellinzoni 2016, p. 336.
  3. ^ Blomberg 2009, p. 97.
  4. ^ Allison, Dale (2010). Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Baker Academic. p. 459. ISBN 978-0801035852.
  5. ^ Reddish 2011, pp. 21–22.
  6. ^ Sanders 1995, pp. 4–5.
  7. ^ Nolan, Albert (2001). Jesus Before Christianity. Orbis books. p. 13. ISBN 9781626984929.

edit-summary

I added in the conventional view of scholars, as articulated by the renowned scholar Dale Allison, alongside a note that quotes his exact view on the matter. "...my inference [...] remains conventional..."

By removing "rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses" and changing "the theologies of their communities" into "it is possible the Gospels are creative theological constructs," you fundamentally change what these sources say, juxtaposing with your interpretation of Dale Allison. Dale Allison writes

Despite the required hesitation, my inference, after taking everything into account, remains conventional: our Synoptic writers thought that they were reconfiguring memories of Jesus, not inventing theological tales. Such a supposition, however, does nothing to clarify whether or not the evangelists were right about the mnemonic nature of their traditions.

You paraphrase this as

conventionally the Synoptic writers are viewed as presenting memories of Jesus rather than creating new stories.

You skip "reconfiguring" and "Such a supposition, however, does nothing to clarify whether or not the evangelists were right about the mnemonic nature of their traditions," omitting the reshaing of these memories.

In your last edit diff, you oddly moved the Bellinzoni and Blomberg-references away from the statement sourced to them, changing

The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain direct eyewitness accounts,[1] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Eve 2014, p. 135.
  2. ^ Bellinzoni 2016, p. 336.
  3. ^ Blomberg 2009, p. 97.

into

The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain direct eyewitness accounts,[1] and scholars like Bellinzoni view them as theological documents of the latter half of the first century

References

  1. ^ Eve 2014, p. 135.

Again, you omit the eyewitness-part. Further, you changed my parapharsing of Dale Allison,

and the Synoptic writers may have thought that they were reconfiguring memories of Jesus rather than creating theological stories

into

according to Dale Allison, the conventional view is that the Synoptic writers thought that they were presenting memories of Jesus instead of creating theological tales

Allison does not write that this is the conventional view; he writes "my inference, after taking everything into account, remains conventional: our Synoptic writers thought that they were reconfiguring memories of Jesus, not inventing theological tales." Again, you're omitting crucial info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I remove the phrase "The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain direct eyewitness accounts", so having "rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses" is completely redundant; why state something that was already stated on the previous sentence? Also Dale Allison claims "my inference [...] is conventional" i.e. his view is the conventional view.
I changed "reconfiguring" into "presenting" to avoid having my paraphrase overlap with Allison's words too much since it is not a direct quotation.
I did not include Allison's comment on "mnemonic nature" not to clutter the paragraph too much; I made sure to include it in the note, and not hide it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz as asked for a consensus before I can compelete my edit. I have not noticed any responses from @Joshua Jonathan or any other editors today. I have justified my edit in detail in this talk page, and I would greatly appreciate feedback soon. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree yet, but I'll take a closer look later, for a calmer and more balanced response. But "presenting" is not the same as "reconfiguring." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. "Presenting" and "reconfiguring" may indeed not exactly be the same semantically, but I am concerned that putting "reconfiguring" or a similar word like "rearranging" directly into a paraphrase might not be ideal. I think "presenting" does not miss the mark much, though it would be nice to find another word.
Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing - Wikipedia Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Dale uses 'reconfiguring" to 'soften' "inventing theological tales"; you turn it into simply 'presenting memories of Jesus', as if they were transmitted unchanged and uninterpreted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfiguring memories is very different from inventing theological tales; the two are juxtaposed very clearly against each other. At any rate if your take does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines regarding paraphrases, I think it should be fine; you are probably much more familiar with those rules than I am. The phrase "may have thought" should be removed, though, as Allison does not doubt or waffle in his inference after analysis. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does anybody have opinions on Lamar Williamson's claim about consensus? I actually do not have any qualms about using scholarship from this time or before, but I think using a statement from 1983 as something from 'today' is disingenuous. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic Gospels

[edit]

@Drmies has claimed that my most recent edit does not fit with the article, even though I pointed out that it is, in fact, relevant to discussion on the relationship between the Synoptics. He has said that he has made an explanation why my edit does not fit, although I cannot recall any. Drmies, in his most recent revert, brings to attention various other talks and edits I have made, though only one, namely the edits on the main Jesus page, concern the same edits made here (the other two, concerning Sanders, is not present on this page). My edit on the Jesus page was objected to because it was supposedly too detailed for a general page on Jesus rather than the Gospels, which does not apply to this Gospel-centric page. In summary, my edit provides important information on the nature of the transmission of the Gospels/Synoptic problem and should be included, while I do not think Drmies has provided any substantial reason it should not. I would appreciate any feedback from other editors. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I wasn't sure if I successfully referred to you. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did. Now, since discussions by you and with you are found in three or four different places, I am going to ping the editors that have taken issue with your edits because this spreading out of conflict is irritating: Golikom, DeCausa, Indiguy, Piouche, Joshua Jonathan--there may be more of them. That I can list five already is very telling, Silverfish2024, and I am wondering if you would rather have this conversation here or at WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Seriously, so many conflicts, so many reverts, so many comments, and yet you can't be stopped, it seems.
My prime concern is with this continued edit warring, and the fact that you don't seem to listen to what others are saying. If I had to address content, I can do that too, but that's not even my prime concern, though it seems to be your only concern--this edit does not really enlighten any relationship, certainly not the first sentence, and it contains a grammatical oddity in the last part, "which makes claims the latter two works are significantly different theologically or historically dubious." If you're going to stick that content back in so many times, provide a transition between the existing text and your text, and copyedit it for grammar--that's what I meant also with "shoehorn". Oh, there is a redundant space at the end. And in Jesus, you stuck that same content in, in the same inelegant way and with the same errors, and that's an FA, so you should have been extra careful. The second part of that edit rudely interrupts the connection between Mark and accuracy, and John as the latest gospel, with a passage in which you link Historical Jesus twice and provide an unnecessary shout-out to Dale Allison. Plus, "wholeheartedly"? Who knows a man's heart? As for EP Sanders, whom I think you are fond of, please let's call him E. P. Sanders.
See, I'm not having a theological discussion with you: I am telling you that you need to be much more careful in editing and perhaps you need to consider that you can't push your will through when editors disagree--I hope we're not getting into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory but I'm wondering if that's what Piouche had in mind. Slow down, please, and listen. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why you say I do not listen to others; I do, and I respond to them. I would appreciate if there is an argument anybody made that I did not apparently take notice of. There is no obligation for me to agree with everything I am told, though I will change my mind if an argument is convincing. I think I understand your concerns though, and I will try to slow down and think through these disagreements.
I will try make sure my edits are grammatically correct from now on. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Minor errors, which I understand includes grammatical and typological issues, are not a basis for removing major additions but rather fixing or tags per WP:FIXFIRST. While I cannot speak for Piouche, I myself find it hard to claim my edit, which I would remind was on the mainline protestant page and unrelated to the edit discussed here, would fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, considering that my information is from a verified source that has been published academically.</isn>

Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my edit (without the sources) in case it was not clear:
Various scholars suggest an entirely oral relationship or a dependence emphasizing memory and tradents in a tradition rather than simple copying. Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly different theologically or historically dubious. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels&oldid=1257091592"