Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

[Thorolfr]

Second, two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses – Matthew and John.

How do we know that the gospels of Matthew and John that we now have were written by eyewitnesses? The attribution of the gospel that we now call Matthew to the apostle of that name is mostly based on a statement from Papias. Unfortunately, we don’t know that the gospel he was talking about is the same one we now call Matthew since Papias doesn’t actually quote anything from the gospel he is talking about. Papias claims that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, but there is no evidence that what we now call the Gosepel According to Matthew is a text translated into Greek from Hebrew. Papias was also not very highly regarded. His entire work was not copied and has been lost so that we only have scattered quotes from it and Eusebius says in his Church History (3.39) that Papias was “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.”

Papias also gives another account of how Judas died which he got from one of his supposedly reliable sources. Papias says that after he betrayed Jesus, Judas swelled up to such an enormous size that he couldn’t even walk down a street with building on either side and that not even his head would fit. He says that Judas’s genitals became swollen and emitted puss and worms. He finally died on his own land by pouring out his guts and created such a stench that even in Papias’s day nearly a century later, people could not pass without holding their noses (see Bart Ehrman’s new book that came out earlier this month, Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Stories of the Savior, p. 29). This story from Papias about Judas hardly sounds very credible.

 

[NM505StKate]

Are you aware that Paul didn’t write Acts?
Maybe that’s why he sounds like two different people.

The character is still like two different people. I did not say Paul wrote Acts.

 

[NM505StKate]

How do we know that the gospels of Matthew and John that we now have were written by eyewitnesses? The attribution of the gospel that we now call Matthew to the apostle of that name is mostly based on a statement from Papias. Unfortunately, we don’t know that the gospel he was talking about is the same one we now call Matthew since Papias doesn’t actually quote anything from the gospel he is talking about. Papias claims that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, but there is no evidence that what we now call the Gosepel According to Matthew is a text translated into Greek from Hebrew. Papias was also not very highly regarded. His entire work was not copied and has been lost so that we only have scattered quotes from it and Eusebius says in his Church History (3.39) that Papias was “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.”

Papias also gives another account of how Judas died which he got from one of his supposedly reliable sources. Papias says that after he betrayed Jesus, Judas swelled up to such an enormous size that he couldn’t even walk down a street with building on either side and that not even his head would fit. He says that Judas’s genitals became swollen and emitted puss and worms. He finally died on his own land by pouring out his guts and created such a stench that even in Papias’s day nearly a century later, people could not pass without holding their noses (see Bart Ehrman’s new book that came out earlier this month, Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Stories of the Savior, p. 29). This story from Papias about Judas hardly sounds very credible.

 

[An_Atheist]

Salvete, omnes!

How do we defend against the argument that some make that the accounts of the miracles in Sacred Scripture come from a kind of “game of telephone” where something gets reported and then altered and then altered and then altered some more until it has been exaggerated to an incredible degree?

I’m thinking in particular about Jesus’ miracles. How can we be sure, apart from faith, that these were reported accurately? How do we convince someone outside the Faith that there is strong evidence to support this?

I mean, perhaps Christ was such a charismatic figure, a skeptic might say, that stories of “miracles” sprung up around him and even got exaggerated very quickly.

I mean, you look at other texts of the period and even those before and after that report various supernatural events such as omens and men/gods doing/experiencing extraordinary/supernatural things. Many of these we consider as inaccurate and many invoke the “game of telephone” argument to support these statements.

Gratias maximas.

There is no way to prove or disprove a claim such as the ones made for Jesus in the New Testament.

In my opinion, the fact that there are contradictions between the gospels, as well as contradictions between alleged events in the gospels and the historical record (such as the fact that the census in the nativity story of Luke never happened) makes the texts unreliable. Another problem is that the more supernatural an episode is in the gospels, the more fanciful the episode became. For instance, if you examine the Resurrection accounts in the order they were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), they become increasingly elaborate, whereas the non-supernatural events tend to stay the same.

I quit being a believer because I was tired of the mental gymnastics that faith required. Archaeologists and scholars have legitimate reasons to dismiss much of the claims in the Gospel texts. They’re not trying to “attack” Christianity anymore than biologists and geologists are trying to “attack” the Genesis account.

If you believe your reason to be God-given, then presumably you’re meant to use it. Would you agree? If reason allows you to see the holes in a religion, then one must conclude that either (a) the deity of that religion is a cruel comic, or (b) the religion has holes.

For what it’s worth, the earliest Christians accepted that there were problems in the Gospel texts. Papias wrote that he preferred to hear about the Lord’s life from those who knew the apostles, rather than from texts.

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,–what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. **For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice. **

 

[Peter_Plato]

Two different time periods though. One says Jesus was born when the census was being taken, which is another matter, and the other during Herod. Problem is that you can’t have Jesus being born and then running off to Egypt when Joseph has to go to his home town for a census. The story makes it sound like it happened at the same time. Was he born in a house or an animal trough? Which of the genealogies is correct, Matthew or Luke because both are inconsistent? Why did two of the Gospels not say a word about the birth? John didn’t give two figs about it and Mark jumps to the baptism by John, never mentions they are related.

That all depends upon which particular census was being mentioned, how long it took to complete and who submitted it. In other words, the census may have started several years before Quirinius finalized and submitted it to Rome. Thus, they may have been enrolled in the same census a number of years prior to when Quirinius actually submitted it to Rome when he was governor.

If several years elapsed, they may have been enrolled, then fled to Egypt. Later, Quirinius submitted it to Rome and thus it was HIS census completed by him when he was governor.
The logic doesn’t preclude a number of alternative possibilities which make the Quirinius issue one that is NOT logically insoluble, even though you may insist that you don’t like the answers.

There is NO contradiction to be had because there are logical possibilities which explain the apparently disparate stories.

We spent an awful lot of time hashing through this back in January. To save my time and energy, go here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=991883&highlight=Quirinius

 

[Peter_Plato]

Rich evidence where? Please tell me or show me the evidence.

Well, now you are being deliberately obtuse.

You do understand how links work, no?

 

[NM505StKate]

That all depends upon which particular census was being mentioned, how long it took to complete and who submitted it. In other words, the census may have started several years before Quirinius finalized and submitted it to Rome. Thus, they may have been enrolled in the same census a number of years prior to when Quirinius actually submitted it to Rome when he was governor.

If several years elapsed, they may have been enrolled, then fled to Egypt. Later, Quirinius submitted it to Rome and thus it was HIS census completed by him when he was governor.
The logic doesn’t preclude a number of alternative possibilities which make the Quirinius issue one that is NOT logically insoluble, even though you may insist that you don’t like the answers.

There is NO contradiction to be had because there are logical possibilities which explain the apparently disparate stories.

We spent an awful lot of time hashing through this back in January. To save my time and energy, go here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=991883&highlight=Quirinius

Maybe the author of Luke made a mistake?

 

[NM505StKate]

There is no way to prove or disprove a claim such as the ones made for Jesus in the New Testament.

In my opinion, the fact that there are contradictions between the gospels, as well as contradictions between alleged events in the gospels and the historical record (such as the fact that the census in the nativity story of Luke never happened) makes the texts unreliable. Another problem is that the more supernatural an episode is in the gospels, the more fanciful the episode became. For instance, if you examine the Resurrection accounts in the order they were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), they become increasingly elaborate, whereas the non-supernatural events tend to stay the same.

I quit being a believer because I was tired of the mental gymnastics that faith required. Archaeologists and scholars have legitimate reasons to dismiss much of the claims in the Gospel texts. They’re not trying to “attack” Christianity anymore than biologists and geologists are trying to “attack” the Genesis account.

If you believe your reason to be God-given, then presumably you’re meant to use it. Would you agree? If reason allows you to see the holes in a religion, then one must conclude that either (a) the deity of that religion is a cruel comic, or (b) the religion has holes.

For what it’s worth, the earliest Christians accepted that there were problems in the Gospel texts. Papias wrote that he preferred to hear about the Lord’s life from those who knew the apostles, rather than from texts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no way to prove or disprove a claim such as the ones made for Jesus in the New Testament.

In my opinion, the fact that there are contradictions between the gospels, as well as contradictions between alleged events in the gospels and the historical record (such as the fact that the census in the nativity story of Luke never happened) makes the texts unreliable.

How does your “opinion” suddenly transform into a “fact?”

There are no logical contradictions between the Gospels. There may be difficult to reconcile accounts, but those are far from being contradictions.

You do understand that a contradiction means logically impossible for both to be true, correct? And not some attenuated “definition" of “contradiction” such as: “I don’t like what I hear?” That would be a “disagreement” not a “contradiction.” See how that works?

You will need to provide proof of your claim that the census under Quirinius NEVER happened before that kind of bald assertion suddenly and magically transforms itself into a “proof.” Again, you seem to be conflating your opinion with facts and your assertions with proofs, as if merely convincing yourself is sufficient to make the case.

At best, the full story lies buried somewhere in the historical record and we cannot draw the conclusion that Luke (or some other Gospel author) is simply mistaken – it may very well be that Luke had access to details that we do not. Since he lived at the time and we are 2000 years removed, my money is on Luke.

A good analysis is here:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

Summary in the Prospects section:

Here we may gather up the evidence to present a composite picture: (1) Luke’s census is not a historical impossibility. Rather at all points, historical analogies can be drawn. (2) Quirinius was not the official governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth. The Syrian records and the current accepted chronology of Jesus’ life simply prevent this conclusion. However, Quirinius’s personal chronology is not fully known, particularly around the years of Jesus’ birth. Thus, it is not impossible that he held another office at the time which Luke appropriately describes with (h[gemoneuontoj thj Suriaj) hegmoneuontos tēs Surias, a description as we saw which could also appropriately describe the office from which he took his well-known census. In short, it is most likely under this otherwise unattested office that Quirinius officiated over what Luke describes. To say more would go beyond the present evidence; to say otherwise, would, as we saw, strain the syntax. As such,** I. Howard Marshall is probably right when he suggests that Luke’s full vindication lies buried somewhere, waiting to be unearthed.

Until then, Luke’s historiographical track record (well-documented in other places) and the implausibility of such a monumental miscalculation, especially considering his method of and purpose for writing (cf. Luke 1:1–4), should forestall the rather premature conclusions noted initially. Moreover, for those of us with a high view of Scripture, the fact that Luke’s record is indeed part of Scripture suggests that these conclusions are not only premature but are, in the end, simply wrong. Further evidence will only demonstrate this more conclusively.

Personally, I’ll go with the best that scholars have to offer (the bold-faced comment of Howard Marshall above) and let the full story reveal itself in due time. Any “conclusions" for the moment, even by heartfelt atheists wishing to discuss the matter behind some pious atheistic agenda or other, ought to be viewed with a measure of skepticism.

Unfortunately some of the “hardened skeptics” on this forum are not sufficiently “hardened" to be skeptical of their own views with the same measure of skepticism they demonstrate vis a vis the views they are hardened against. Right, Kate?

 

[clem456]

There is no way to prove or disprove a claim such as the ones made for Jesus in the New Testament.

In my opinion, the fact that there are contradictions between the gospels, as well as contradictions between alleged events in the gospels and the historical record (such as the fact that the census in the nativity story of Luke never happened) makes the texts unreliable.
…
For what it’s worth, the earliest Christians accepted that there were problems in the Gospel texts. Papias wrote that he preferred to hear about the Lord’s life from those who knew the apostles, rather than from texts.

Think about something for a second.
If you were smart enough, and determined enough, to concoct such an elaborate ruse, don’t you think you would be smart enough not to approve contradictory versions of events?

Any good liar knows he must use the truth, and make it believable.
Any serious scholar recognizes the fact that keeping obvious contradictions in your canon points to authenticity more easily than to dishonesty or unreliability.

I find it interesting that fundamentalists and atheists make strange and intimate bedfellows in their literalist demands on the accounts of human events. They simply differ in their conclusions.

 

[NM505StKate]

There are no logical contradictions between the Gospels. There may be difficult to reconcile accounts, but those are far from being contradictions.

Differences in family tree of Jesus, when he was born, what was his first miracle.

You do understand that a contradiction means logically impossible for both to be true, correct? And not some attenuated “definition" of “contradiction” such as: “I don’t like what I hear?” That would be a “disagreement” not a “contradiction.” See how that works?

So how many years was Jesus with the Apostles?

You will need to provide proof of your claim that the census under Quirinius NEVER happened before that kind of bald assertion suddenly and magically transforms itself into a “proof.” Again, you seem to be conflating your opinion with facts and your assertions with proofs, as if merely convincing yourself is sufficient to make the case.

At best, the full story lies buried somewhere in the historical record and we cannot draw the conclusion that Luke (or some other Gospel author) is simply mistaken – it may very well be that Luke had access to details that we do not. Since he lived at the time and we are 2000 years removed, my money is on Luke.

A good analysis is here:
biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

Summary in the Prospects section:

Personally, I’ll go with the best that scholars have to offer (the bold-faced comment of Howard Marshall above) and let the full story reveal itself in due time. Any “conclusions" for the moment, even by heartfelt atheists wishing to discuss the matter behind some pious atheistic agenda or other, ought to be viewed with a measure of skepticism.

Unfortunately some of the “hardened skeptics” on this forum are not sufficiently “hardened" to be skeptical of their own views with the same measure of skepticism they demonstrate vis a vis the views they are hardened against. Right, Kate?

So if Jesus was born around the time of Herod and fled to Egypt why then in Luke does it sound like Mary was preggy during the Census and makes no mention of the travel to Egypt?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Maybe the author of Luke made a mistake?

Is that the best you can do?

You do realize the burden is on you to prove, in a logically irrefutable way, that he DID – in fact – make a mistake. That is what claiming a “contradiction” means, essentially.

It is NOT sufficient to claim he might have made a mistake. You need to PROVE that he did.

You haven’t even come close.

This is the problem with skepticism.

You can dispute everything, but you are left with nothing.

My standard is "reasonable to believe.”

Your standard seems to be “logically impossible NOT to be false.” Good luck with that.

There are no logically certain premises except those which are trivially true. The moment we try to move past those we run into our own epistemic limitations. The trick is to recognize those, apply skepticism fairly and consistently and then move on to what is sensible and reasonable.

 

[NM505StKate]

Think about something for a second.
If you were smart enough, and determined enough, to concoct such an elaborate ruse, don’t you think you would be smart enough not to approve contradictory versions of events?

Any good liar knows he must use the truth, and make it believable.
Any serious scholar recognizes the fact that keeping obvious contradictions in your canon points to authenticity more easily than to dishonesty or unreliability.

I find it interesting that fundamentalists and atheists make strange and intimate bedfellows in their literalist demands on the accounts of human events. They simply differ in their conclusions.

Do we even have a good translation of the original texts? Like do we use the King James version that has had countless edits? Simply said the original text may have told a man whom was a prophet but had nothing about miracles. Just they were added in to help bolster a early church. Maybe to also try to have the other sects that were springing up brought under one say.

 

[NM505StKate]

Is that the best you can do?

You do realize the burden is on you to prove, in a logically irrefutable way, that he DID – in fact – make a mistake. That is what claiming a “contradiction” means, essentially.

It is NOT sufficient to claim he might have made a mistake. You need to PROVE that he did.

You haven’t even come close.

This is the problem with skepticism.

You can dispute everything, but you are left with nothing.

My standard is "reasonable to believe.”

Your standard seems to be “logically impossible NOT to be false.” Good luck with that.

There are no logically certain premises except those which are trivially true. The moment we try to move past those we run into our own epistemic limitations. The trick is to recognize those, apply skepticism fairly and consistently and then move on to what is sensible and reasonable.

The census took place around 6 CE. Herod died around 1 BCE. Luke has Jesus born at 6 CE where Matthew has it before 1 BCE.

 

[clem456]

Do we even have a good translation of the original texts? Like do we use the King James version that has had countless edits? Simply said the original text may have told a man whom was a prophet but had nothing about miracles. Just they were added in to help bolster a early church. Maybe to also try to have the other sects that were springing up brought under one say.

Nice dodge.

Done. Pointless.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Differences in family tree of Jesus, when he was born, what was his first miracle.

Look up the phrase "Gish Gallop.”

Pick one, spell out the precise problem and see where that leads. Spewing is unbecoming of a lady.

So how many years was Jesus with the Apostles?

Which Apostle specifically?

Look up “fallacy of division.”

So if Jesus was born around the time of Herod and fled to Egypt why then in Luke does it sound like Mary was preggy during the Census and makes no mention of the travel to Egypt?

Look up "Ludic Fallacy” or “congruence bias.”

How does the phrase “sound like” provide any kind of certainty with regard to your point?

You are asking good questions, but merely because they can be asked does not prove them unanswerable. You do understand that, yes?

 

[NM505StKate]

Look up the phrase "Gish Gallop.”

Pick one, spell out the precise problem and see where that leads. Spewing is unbecoming of a lady.

Which Apostle specifically?

Look up “fallacy of division.”

Look up "Ludic Fallacy” or “congruence bias.”

How does the phrase “sound like” provide any kind of certainty with regard to your point?

You are asking good questions, but merely because they can be asked does not prove them unanswerable. You do understand that, yes?

Let me rephrase the question. How many years did Jesus preach?

Luke has it Mary gave birth in Bethlaham and stayed there. No mention of Egypt.

What year was Jesus born?

What was his first miracle?

Why is there differences in Matthew and Luke of Jesus’ family tree?

 

[NM505StKate]

Nice dodge.

Done. Pointless.

Am I not asking good questions?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The census took place around 6 CE. Herod died around 1 BCE. Luke has Jesus born at 6 CE where Matthew has it before 1 BCE.

How long did this particular census take to complete? Can you provide THAT detail which is completely absent from your assessment? Facts and evidence will suffice. Proof by assertion or assumption won’t.

A well-known census in Gaul took the Roman authorities forty years to complete. A mere 7 years does not seem unreasonable given the disarray in the area under Herod Archelaus, following Herod the Great.
*
Aside: You do realize there were at least four Herods involved, correct?
Herod the Great
Herod Archelaus
Herod Antipas
Herod Philip I *

Perhaps the census started before 1 BCE and was completed in 6 CE. Thus, Jesus could have been born any time between 1 BCE and 6 CE and he still would have been born and registered during the same census that was completed by Quirinius in 6 CE.

 

[NM505StKate]

How long did this particular census take to complete? Can you provide THAT detail which is completely absent from your assessment? Facts and evidence will suffice. Proof by assertion or assumption won’t.

A well-known census in Gaul took the Roman authorities forty years to complete. A mere 7 years does not seem unreasonable given the disarray in the area under Herod Archelaus, following Herod the Great.
*
Aside: You do realize there were at least four Herods involved, correct?
Herod the Great
Herod Archelaus
Herod Antipas
Herod Philip I *

Perhaps the census started before 1 BCE and was completed in 6 CE. Thus, Jesus could have been born any time between 1 BCE and 6 CE and he still would have been born and registered during the same census that was completed by Quirinius in 6 CE.

Wouldn’t there be a record of Jesus then? I mean I am fine with Jesus being born during the census but it means that Jesus was born before 1 BCE, ran to Egypt, and then came back for the census. It also brings up why didn’t Matthew say anything about the census? He was, by accounts, under Roman employ and would mention something his employer was doing, especially something as big as census. Also for being as efficient with their record keeping it seems very inefficient for Rome to have citizens travel back to their hometowns. The more I think about it I am certain Luke has Mary preggy during the trip to Bethliham. They stayed there, in a house or barn it is unsure, for a solid while after Jesus was born. No tell of them going to Egypt.