Historical Criteria: Gospels Waited Too Long

[Sherlock]

Very well said. I have noticed his tone in other threads is arrogant and condescending towards those who believe in God. It’s typical of most atheists to be condescending, as they believe they are “enlightened” and the rest of us are fools for believing in myths. Yet I’ve never heard an atheist give a logical or reasonable explanation of creation if there is no first cause, which is God. I suppose atheists tend to be arrogant and condescending to avoid having to answer how something comes from nothing. This is the most illogical position to take, yet atheists take this absurd position.

I agree. When challenged by the intellect of, say, Aquinas, most atheists I know duck and run and change the subject. One gal I know (the daughter of a friend of mine) went from an Evangelical background to atheism, and though the non-intellectual reason for the conversion was very clear—her boyfriend was an atheist—she insisted it was because of her “intellectual inquiry” that was the cause of her atheism. When I asked her for the specific arguments that had been most convincing for her, she gave the incredibly lame “can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?—questions like that”. Good grief. She also stated that Christianity told her that “man was evil”, and now that she was an Objectivist (a particularly ludicrous form of atheist), she didn’t agree with that. I told her that she was mistaken; that orthodox Christianity did not, in fact, teach that. That left her without a reply. I asked her if she had read Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”, and she told me that sure, she had read that (!!!). Well, it didn’t take much questioning to discover that she didn’t even know what the Summa was, but in order to appear very intellectual, and her conversion apear to be based on rationality, she lied. When this was made plain, she decided that she didn’t want to discuss the existence of God anymore. Yup, she was simply a kid who wanted to make her pseudo-intellectual atheist boyfriend think that she was smart too.

Having been an atheist myself when I was younger, I can attest to the appeal of feeling superior to all of those sheep-like believers—it’s somewhat excusable in the young (after all, they’re young and stupid) but I see the same attitude in adult atheist acquaintances, which is why I think that intellectual insecurity might be a strong motivating factor in some people becoming and remaining atheists. Not all, mind you: I’m sure there are people who unfortunately have encountered silly and distasteful Christians (I’m thinking here of those TV evangelist types, Bible thumpers, etc.) who might be anti-intellectual in fact and not just in appearance. And there is strong evidence that people with negative relationships with their fathers are more likely to be atheistic, so a person may be inclined in that direction while thinking that his choice of atheism is entirely based on reason.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

atheos_sum:

Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?

This is an obvious problem.

As an event gets discussed, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be skewed. The less time that has elapsed, the less likely there will be alteration and exaggeration. Would we trust someone to give an account of a car accident and their back pains 20 years after the fact? What could possibly be the reason for waiting so long?

One possibility that is often mentioned, is that expectations of the return of Christ did not encourage the formation of written forms of the Gospel.​

1 Thessalonians does reflect an atmosphere of eager expectation of this sort; just as 2 Peter 3 (written perhaps as late as 120 or so) implies disappointment of such hopes.

What is more, passages which suggest an early return of Christ (such as Matthew 24.34-6) can be found close to passages suggesting that the Church was settling down for a long wait at some point in the indefinite future - Acts 1.9 is one of these.

The whole question is dreadfully complicated - what does seem clear (though it was much debated in the 19th century - see Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”) is that Jesus preached a strongly eschatological message. This, almost unavoidably, means that one has to ask what He intended by founding an ecclesia - because if He thought the end was close, a Church with a lifespan of centuries seems a rather odd thing to found. It is for this reason, among others, that the authenticity of Matthew 16.13-20 has been denied. OTOH, He may have intended to found a sect within Judaism (BTW - the word “sect” as applied to bodies within late Second Temple Judaism does not have the pejorative associations it carries in a Christian context).

The eschatological hopes of the community founded by Jesus may have retarded the growth of a Christian ministry - such hopes may equally well have had no such effect. One of the things to beware of is the temptation to lump the Christian communities together - because they may well have developed similar features at different times: for example, it does not follow that because there was a monarchical episcopate at Antioch by 110, there must therefore have been one at Rome by that date; there may have been - and there may not. Different books attained canonical status in different Churches at different times - and there may have been a similar lack of uniformity in other matters. IOW - the variety of early Christianity shouldn’t be underestimated.

As to the gospels - the written gospels as we have them now are only the latest stage in the process of the fixation of traditions about Jesus in writing. This is why such hypothetical documents as the Q-source are so important. The gospels bear witness in their own text to the process of their formation - Matthew & Luke have:

• Different beatitudes
• Different forms of the Lord’s Prayer
• Matthew has a Sermon on the Mount - Luke, a sermon on level ground
• Matthew presents Jesus as teaching extended bodies of material, as in 5 to 7 (Sermon on the Mount) & 13 (a string of parables of the Kingdom)

There are different versions of the healing of the centurion’s servant or son; in fact, if one wants to construct a harmony of the life of Jesus, the material resists such treatment; for the simple reason that one cannot make harmonious what was not written to be harmonious. The inconsistencies are real, numerous, and can’t all be resolved - & that doesn’t matter. Apart from any other consideration, if both Polybius & Livy can be treated as good sources for the campaign of Hannibal, despite their lack of perfect agreement - why should the lack of such agreement make the Evangelists unreliable ?

IMHO, endless harm has been done by the stupid and senseless notion that the gospels must be in perfect agreement, or not be trustworthy at all. By insisting on the shadow of too high a degree of perfection for the gospels, their champions have lost for them the substance of the excellencies they do possess, and have created a split between Fundamentalists and liberals the Church could well have been spared. ##

 

[puzzleannie]

atheos_sum:

Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?

This is an obvious problem.

As an event gets discussed, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be skewed. The less time that has elapsed, the less likely there will be alteration and exaggeration. ?

that is a matter of opinion. as a student of history, it is my opinion that accounts written during or shortly after a certain historical period are less likely to be accurate, complete, and to have a balanced perspective. Accounts written while an event is happening, or shortly after are much more likely to be biased, to reflect a narrow point of view and limited experience of the event. Accounts written long after the event have the advantage of synthesizing many more first person accounts, other factual evidence, experiences of many persons with many different points of view and filtered through a better understanding of the causes, contributing factors, and results of the event or time period.

A good example is the Viet Nam war. If we relied solely on newspaper accounts and government reports issued during that period our understanding of the war, its causes, principal events, outcomes, interplay of important personages and political movements, our appreciation of the true history of that period would be sadly lacking, biased, and woefully incomplete and inaccurate. A student of that era would do well to consult primary sources from that period, as well as accounts, interviews, and source materials compiled many years after. For instance, many things that were classified and unavailable to scholars are now available for researchers.

 

[atheos_sum]

“You claim that i have not given evidence that to write an account 30–50 years after an incident has occurred is not “as soon as possible”? If 30–50 years is not a long time to pass before writing such an account, then what is?”

The key word here is “possible”. What is your expertise in ancient writing and ancient cultures that allows you to determine what is and is not possible in a given period of time? Do you have extensive knowledge of this period in history?

It wasn’t possible to write the Gospels earlier than 30 years after? This was an impossibility?

My experience and scholarship should hardly matter. You’re trying to wedge my argument beyond investigation by questioning what kind of a person I am without addressing the actual argument. This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Nonetheless, I’ve been a volunteer at a museum of natural history and culture. I’ve taken Greek and Latin, and will soon study Hebrew at a local synagogue. I am a “scholar,” having been awarded two academic scholarships, albeit not for ancient cultures. Moreover, I have extensively studied a variety of disciplines and continue to do so out of my own curiosity. I’m not a biblical scholar, however, if you will only accept arguments which come from this community, then you should know that the scholarship from this community has not been favorable towards traditional views of scripture.

Sherlock:

“It is never convincing when people tell me that they used to be athiests. You used to be an athiest. What does this prove?”

That at least I have some experience in that particular area—which is more than could be said for your foray here into ancient cultures and writing.

You have some experience as an atheist. I don’t know what to say exactly—*congratulations? *Sure, perhaps every Catholic should have some experience as an atheist, because then they can tell atheists that they have “been there, done that” and this, of course, is always a valid testimony. (Note sarcasm and disgust.)

Sherlock:

“you think atheism is something people do only to seem “intellectual-like”? why is that? Do you not like intellectuals?”

I love intellectuals who don’t take leave of their common sense (Chesterton, of course, being a prime example). But from my own experience when I was younger, and my experience of friends who are atheists, I do see that there is often an underlying desire to be thought of as an intellectual. This desire is stronger, frankly, then the intellect itself in many cases.

This is a waste of my time. Why are you trying to explain atheism away by using psychological/social stereotypes of yours? I have not done this to your views. Although I could say that Christians are weak-willed and seek psychological refuge in a comforting thought, or I could say that most Christians/Catholics were raised this way and have not questioned their beliefs; Christians are too stupid to understand atheism. Etc. etc. These arguments don’t go anywhere.

Sherlock:

“let you know when i want to discus real ideas? If this isn’t a real idea, what is a real idea? Who decides what a real idea is?”

The question isn’t whether your topic is “real” or not, it’s whether or not you have any expertise and scholarship in this area. I don’t think much of people who take stances who don’t have a background that lends their positions credibility.

The idea is real, expertise does not matter. Nonetheless, the experts themselves are largely in favor of such views. This topic should be discussed by both experts and laymen. You are invalidly appealing to authority.

Sherlock:

“i don’t have much depth myself? this is an unusual setting for you to make such a claim. how did you establish that? How much depth do you have to yourself?”

Enough to recognize intellectual posturing when I see it. Having “been there, done that”, it’s easy to see the signs.

What does it look like? Is it possible that there are atheists who aren’t intellectually posturing. Is it possible that there are atheists who are not like the atheists you knew as a young person?

btw, I happen to recognize indignation when I see it.

 

[atheos_sum]

MarkPerz:

Could it be that the apostles and disciples believed that they would witness the second coming? That they thought that Jesus would return during their lifetimes, and writing an account of His life and teachings wasn’t really necessary?

Why not, they could have gained more followers had they wrote their Gospels before the second coming.

 

[atheos_sum]

Very well said. I have noticed his tone in other threads is arrogant and condescending towards those who believe in God. It’s typical of most atheists to be condescending, as they believe they are “enlightened” and the rest of us are fools for believing in myths. Yet I’ve never heard an atheist give a logical or reasonable explanation of creation if there is no first cause, which is God. I suppose atheists tend to be arrogant and condescending to avoid having to answer how something comes from nothing. This is the most illogical position to take, yet atheists take this absurd position.

misconceptions. i accept the first cause argument or cosmological argument. This does not prove there exists any God besides a “first cause,” nor that God is personal or worthy of worship. and if all that is required is a first cause, then this could are many possibilities as to what it is. Why should it even be called “God”? many atheists hold this sort of view.

 

[atheos_sum]

Sherlock:

I agree. When challenged by the intellect of, say, Aquinas, most atheists I know duck and run and change the subject. One gal I know (the daughter of a friend of mine) went from an Evangelical background to atheism, and though the non-intellectual reason for the conversion was very clear—her boyfriend was an atheist—she insisted it was because of her “intellectual inquiry” that was the cause of her atheism. When I asked her for the specific arguments that had been most convincing for her, she gave the incredibly lame “can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?—questions like that”. Good grief. She also stated that Christianity told her that “man was evil”, and now that she was an Objectivist (a particularly ludicrous form of atheist), she didn’t agree with that. I told her that she was mistaken; that orthodox Christianity did not, in fact, teach that. That left her without a reply. I asked her if she had read Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”, and she told me that sure, she had read that (!!!). Well, it didn’t take much questioning to discover that she didn’t even know what the Summa was, but in order to appear very intellectual, and her conversion apear to be based on rationality, she lied. When this was made plain, she decided that she didn’t want to discuss the existence of God anymore. Yup, she was simply a kid who wanted to make her pseudo-intellectual atheist boyfriend think that she was smart too.

Having been an atheist myself when I was younger, I can attest to the appeal of feeling superior to all of those sheep-like believers—it’s somewhat excusable in the young (after all, they’re young and stupid) but I see the same attitude in adult atheist acquaintances, which is why I think that intellectual insecurity might be a strong motivating factor in some people becoming and remaining atheists. Not all, mind you: I’m sure there are people who unfortunately have encountered silly and distasteful Christians (I’m thinking here of those TV evangelist types, Bible thumpers, etc.) who might be anti-intellectual in fact and not just in appearance. And there is strong evidence that people with negative relationships with their fathers are more likely to be atheistic, so a person may be inclined in that direction while thinking that his choice of atheism is entirely based on reason.

Ah, more misconceptions.

1. In fact, i have read the Summa.
2. Again, saying you used to be an atheist is not compelling.

and, If you think that atheists are just posturing intellectually like the other poster believes, then why should i not think that Catholics are posturing intellectually when they claim to have once been hard-nosed atheists.

 

[atheos_sum]

buffalo:

Matthew was written about 42AD. That’s only 10-15 years.

where are you getting your information?

Even Christian scholars agree to this. In Josh McDowell’s book “New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” he says Matthew was written in the 60s AD.

here’s a christian website as well

 

[atheos_sum]

Gottle of Geer:

The inconsistencies are real, numerous, and can’t all be resolved - & that doesn’t matter. Apart from any other consideration, if both Polybius & Livy can be treated as good sources for the campaign of Hannibal, despite their lack of perfect agreement - why should the lack of such agreement make the Evangelists unreliable ?

IMHO, endless harm has been done by the stupid and senseless notion that the gospels must be in perfect agreement, or not be trustworthy at all. By insisting on the shadow of too high a degree of perfection for the gospels, their champions have lost for them the substance of the excellencies they do possess, and have created a split between Fundamentalists and liberals the Church could well have been spared. ##

A quick look in the encyclopedia shows that Polybius was present at some of the campaigns he wrote of. But Livy was born after most of these events.

Also, Livy and Polybius are not held, even by the most passionate of scholars, to be historians “inspired by God.” But we are not discussing whether they are in perfect agreement in this thread, but why they waited so long.

Also, the codex was recently invented at the time of Jesus’ death, so the disciples had more of an opportunity to create better manuscripts.

 

[atheos_sum]

puzzleannie:

that is a matter of opinion. as a student of history, it is my opinion that accounts written during or shortly after a certain historical period are less likely to be accurate, complete, and to have a balanced perspective. Accounts written while an event is happening, or shortly after are much more likely to be biased, to reflect a narrow point of view and limited experience of the event.

how do historians determine whether the accounts written during or shortly after a certain historical period are accurate? If you compare earlier accounts to later accounts, what signifies which is more balanced? Is this a disputed notion in historians’ circles or is this widely accepted?

puzzleannie:

Accounts written long after the event have the advantage of synthesizing many more first person accounts, other factual evidence, experiences of many persons with many different points of view and filtered through a better understanding of the causes, contributing factors, and results of the event or time period.

A good example is the Viet Nam war. If we relied solely on newspaper accounts and government reports issued during that period our understanding of the war, its causes, principal events, outcomes, interplay of important personages and political movements, our appreciation of the true history of that period would be sadly lacking, biased, and woefully incomplete and inaccurate. A student of that era would do well to consult primary sources from that period, as well as accounts, interviews, and source materials compiled many years after. For instance, many things that were classified and unavailable to scholars are now available for researchers.

This is an interesting and clever explanation.

Does it make a difference that the current historians of the Vietnam era have both recent scholarship as well as scholarship from that era to examine?

 

[Sherlock]

“It wasn’t possible to write the Gospels earlier than 30 years after? This was an impossibility?”

Give me proof that in an ancient culture where tradition and identity were passed on via oral tradition, and most of the people were illiterate, this was a priority or a possibility.

“My experience and scholarship should hardly matter. You’re trying to wedge my argument beyond investigation by questioning what kind of a person I am without addressing the actual argument. This is an ad hominem fallacy.”

No, it’s not—I’m not attacking you as a person. And yes, your knowledge and scholarship in ancient cultures is very, very relevant to the question. Without such knowledge, I see no reason to think that your position has merit. I have listened to scholars who are knowledgeable in this are, and they don’t seem to have the same problems with the age of the Gospels as do you.

“Nonetheless, I’ve been a volunteer at a museum of natural history and culture. I’ve taken Greek and Latin, and will soon study Hebrew at a local synagogue. I am a “scholar,” having been awarded two academic scholarships, albeit not for ancient cultures. Moreover, I have extensively studied a variety of disciplines and continue to do so out of my own curiosity. I’m not a biblical scholar, however, if you will only accept arguments which come from this community, then you should know that the scholarship from this community has not been favorable towards traditional views of scripture.”

Volunteering at a museum and taking Greek and Latin do not make you an expert in ancient cultures. That’s the expertise I will respect if you’re going to make assertions----lacking that, your assertions are simply unsupported and more likely motivated by your own biases.

“You have some experience as an atheist. I don’t know what to say exactly—congratulations? Sure, perhaps every Catholic should have some experience as an atheist, because then they can tell atheists that they have “been there, done that” and this, of course, is always a valid testimony. (Note sarcasm and disgust.)”

It’s helpful in identifying what inclines a person towards atheism, and also having personally worked through the standard atheist objections to faith.

“This is a waste of my time. Why are you trying to explain atheism away by using psychological/social stereotypes of yours? I have not done this to your views. Although I could say that Christians are weak-willed and seek psychological refuge in a comforting thought, or I could say that most Christians/Catholics were raised this way and have not questioned their beliefs; Christians are too stupid to understand atheism. Etc. etc. These arguments don’t go anywhere.”

They are merely observations based on personal experience; not stereotypes. And research does indeed show a correlation between one’s relationship with one’s father and a tendency towards atheism.

“The idea is real, expertise does not matter. Nonetheless, the experts themselves are largely in favor of such views. This topic should be discussed by both experts and laymen. You are invalidly appealing to authority.”

Sure, the topic should be discussed. But, when someone holds a postion, I expect some substance backing it up, not merely one’s personal biases.

“What does it look like? Is it possible that there are atheists who aren’t intellectually posturing. Is it possible that there are atheists who are not like the atheists you knew as a young person?”

Of course, to both questions. I am speaking of observations of a group as a whole: there are always exceptions.

 

[buffalo]

puzzleannie:

that is a matter of opinion. as a student of history, it is my opinion that accounts written during or shortly after a certain historical period are less likely to be accurate, complete, and to have a balanced perspective. Accounts written while an event is happening, or shortly after are much more likely to be biased, to reflect a narrow point of view and limited experience of the event. Accounts written long after the event have the advantage of synthesizing many more first person accounts, other factual evidence, experiences of many persons with many different points of view and filtered through a better understanding of the causes, contributing factors, and results of the event or time period.

.

Except that they were guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit.

 

[buffalo]

atheos_sum:

where are you getting your information?

Even Christian scholars agree to this. In Josh McDowell’s book “New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” he says Matthew was written in the 60s AD.

here’s a christian website as well

From

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

		 **[[According to the Clementine Tradition]](http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

is in full accord with:

			 The 				earliest Christian historians

			 Modern 				literary analysis

			 The 				doctrine of the church

			 Recent 				Church statements

			 The following pages contain the evidence for 				the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful 				effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the Church`s reaction.

from Chapter 2
When Claudius became emperor in AD 40, he appointed the Jewish Herod Agrippa as king of Palestine. Needing to consolidate his influence with the High Priest, Herod beheaded the Apostle James the Great and, “Seeing that it pleased the Jews”, he arrested Peter. (Acts 12: 1-11). When king Herod died his son was too young to rule, so a Roman governor was appointed and under him the Church was left in peace.
Matthew would have written his gospel at or about this time.

 

[BibleReader]

atheos_sum:

Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?

This is an obvious problem.

As an event gets discussed, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be skewed. The less time that has elapsed, the less likely there will be alteration and exaggeration. Would we trust someone to give an account of a car accident and their back pains 20 years after the fact? What could possibly be the reason for waiting so long?

(1) The standard belief among Bible commentators is that the Early Church expected the Second Coming “any minute,” and when it began to appear that Christ would “tarry,” they realized that they had better write the gospels.

(2) The gospels aren’t just “histories.” Only a modern Westerner would think like that. But they weren’t written by modern Westerners.

There is an appearance in the gospels that the authors felt free to “play fast and loose” with the facts, to teach varying theological lessons.

 

[Ghosty]

1. In fact, i have read the Summa.

And someone else asked me if i had read all of Summa Theologica. not in its entirety. I have read a good portion, including the part about the five ways, and ontological argumentation. (from another thread)

Just out of curiosity, what qualifies as a “good portion”? I ask because in our other thread you don’t seem to be able to follow the logical premises set forth by the Summa, and I’m really rather curious as to just how much you’ve read of it, and understood.

This may sound like a harsh question, but it’s actually pretty important given your claims.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

atheos_sum:

A quick look in the encyclopedia shows that Polybius was present at some of the campaigns he wrote of. But Livy was born after most of these events.

Which is no argument against both authors’ having something to say on the same subjects - it’s not as though Polybius were treated as alone authoritative for the reason stated, and Livy not.​

Apropos of narrative accounts, reliability, and dating of the authors of them: author B, writing 200 years after author A, may have valuable information to give about events narrated by author A, even though A was contemporary with the events he describes, and B was not - which is why simple contemporaneity of an author with his subject-matter is not enough to make him more reliable than author B.

This holds for those two authors, and for any other one cares to mention: it’s one reason that the Resurrection accounts do not have to be written soon after the events themselves. Whether in actual fact they were written soon after (or not) can’t be settled by reasoning isolated from particular details; simply because abstract reasoning needs to be controlled by particulars; that is, by some kind of evidence. ##

Also, Livy and Polybius are not held, even by the most passionate of scholars, to be historians “inspired by God.”

Nor is it being suggested that they were. Whether an author is “inspired by God”, or by gods, is irrelevant to the text he writes except for the theologian. Which is why prayer to St. Paul for understanding of Romans, good as it may be, is no replacement for learning NT Greek, or for applying to Romans the usual tools of critical study, and asking the usual questions about the date of the letter, integrity of the letter, the textual tradition by which it has reached us; and so on, and so on. The same, and other, questions, can be asked about the other books - & about classical texts. Which is why theological claims, such as that a book is inspired, are irrelevant to the work of critical scholarship - because they are of no help in answering questions of literary criticism. Therefore, for those purposes, the lack of inspiration of Polybius or Livy (as compared with the very different status claimed for the NT) is irrelevant to critical questions - because, for such questions, the NT books, Livy, and Polybius are all literary artefacts - whether any of these books is more than a literary artefact, has no bearing on critical questions.​

a) An example - the Romans may in some sense have been a “chosen people”. That is a theological claim.

b) Vergil based Book Six of the Aeneid on Book Eleven of the Odyssey. That is a literary claim. It can be studied, because the means to study the question are available - which is not true, or not in the same way, of the theological claims implied in it - or in the Bible. Literary artifacts can be studied - claims to theological value are more elusive. They may or may not be valid - but, whether they are or not, they are incommensurable in kind with critical questions. Which is why the two sets of questions need different methods.

c) In God’s Providence, the Roman people were prepared by Him for the coming of Christ, so that the Roman Empire might be a means of spreading the Gospel. To this end, He gave them victory over their enemies, and worked miracles on their behalf - that is a theological claim, from the very specific POV of a Christian interested in salvation history, outside Israel, rather than (as is more usual) within it.

I apologise for what may seem a digression - but context is needed; and far too often, Biblical questions are not given one. So raising critical questions can look like profanity, even when it is not.

There is a further question - what is inspiration ? Is it a special Divine afflatus which was confined to those who brought the Bible into being ? Or is there a sense in which all authors are inspired ? ##

But we are not discussing whether they are in perfect agreement in this thread, but why they waited so long.

The matter of their agreement (or lack of it) is not irrelevant to the dating of the accounts; if people think the agreement, or lack of it, of the evangelists is relevant to the dating of the gospels, they will say so.​

Also, the codex was recently invented at the time of Jesus’ death, so the disciples had more of an opportunity to create better manuscripts.

It does not follow that they saw fit to use it​

 

[atheos_sum]

Sherlock:

Give me proof that in an ancient culture where tradition and identity were passed on via oral tradition, and most of the people were illiterate, this was a priority or a possibility.

The Romans recorded events as they happened.
For example, Cicero wrote about the Catiline Conspiracy shortly after it took place.
And scribes began documenting Muhammad’s life soon after he died, and the Qu’ran was first canonized within 20 years of his death.

Sherlock:

No, it’s not—I’m not attacking you as a person.

by saying that i am an atheist who is only intellectually posturing and doesn’t have ‘real ideas’? That is an ad hominem.

Sherlock:

And yes, your knowledge and scholarship in ancient cultures is very, very relevant to the question. Without such knowledge, I see no reason to think that your position has merit. I have listened to scholars who are knowledgeable in this are, and they don’t seem to have the same problems with the age of the Gospels as do you.

Which scholars? Was it at your church? Was it at a church conference or something of the sort?

Sherlock:

Volunteering at a museum and taking Greek and Latin do not make you an expert in ancient cultures. That’s the expertise I will respect if you’re going to make assertions----lacking that, your assertions are simply unsupported and more likely motivated by your own biases.

Did I mention I’m well read? Maybe that seems like intellectual posturing to you.

You don’t need to be a scholar to ask this question. Nonetheless, the scholars themselves ask this question. Bart Ehrman, for example. Are you an expert in ancient cultures? If not, by your own standards, why do you think you have reason to object?

Sherlock:

They are merely observations based on personal experience; not stereotypes.

That is what anyone with a stereotype would say, now isn’t it? ex.g., Based on my observations and experience Catholics are anti-intellectual, therefore this is not a stereotype.

Sherlock:

“The idea is real, expertise does not matter. Nonetheless, the experts themselves are largely in favor of such views. This topic should be discussed by both experts and laymen. You are invalidly appealing to authority.”

Sure, the topic should be discussed. But, when someone holds a postion, I expect some substance backing it up, not merely one’s personal biases.

Then by your standards only scholars should discuss it, since only they have “substanace”. But you have basically tried to wedge any one out of argument who doesn’t agree to your biases. And in fact, this is an issue that scholars have raised. The fact that the gospels were written late is not in questin. Why they were written late is a dispute.

Sherlock:

“What does it look like? Is it possible that there are atheists who aren’t intellectually posturing. Is it possible that there are atheists who are not like the atheists you knew as a young person?”

Of course, to both questions. I am speaking of observations of a group as a whole: there are always exceptions.

Really, maybe i’m an exception.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

Just out of curiosity, what qualifies as a “good portion”? I ask because in our other thread you don’t seem to be able to follow the logical premises set forth by the Summa, and I’m really rather curious as to just how much you’ve read of it, and understood.

This may sound like a harsh question, but it’s actually pretty important given your claims.

Yes i have reread more portions since i wrote that post.

But i am mostly concerned with the beginning of the book which is more directed towards objections to the existence of God and the nature of the soul etc. The parts about the sacraments and holy orders, for example, are not important to me. So i have not read them.

At any rate, the summa has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[puzzleannie]

atheos_sum:

This is an interesting and clever explanation.

Does it make a difference that the current historians of the Vietnam era have both recent scholarship as well as scholarship from that era to examine?

I think many people who were adults in this country during the Viet Nam war would agree that recently published accounts, opinions, interviews, histories of that time disagree sharply on many points from what was being reported or published by the government, news media, anti-war protesters, pro- or anti-war politicians and commentators, etc. at that time, and that such accounts changed in tone over the course of the conflict. The attitudes of current political figures to their role (or non-role) in the recent presidential election and what spin they put on it are clues to that.

 

[Sherlock]

“The Romans recorded events as they happened.
For example, Cicero wrote about the Catiline Conspiracy shortly after it took place.”

Not consistently true, but in any case they were the rulers and not a persecuted minority.

“And scribes began documenting Muhammad’s life soon after he died, and the Qu’ran was first canonized within 20 years of his death.”

Again, Muhammad was a military ruler. His followers, after his death, were not a persecuted minority. Also, Jesus established a Church to protect and spread his teachings, Muhammad did not.

“by saying that i am an atheist who is only intellectually posturing and doesn’t have ‘real ideas’? That is an ad hominem.”

I didn’t say that you don’t have real ideas—if you read my posts more carefully, you’ll see that. And my comment about recognizing intellectual posturing when I see it was not the sum and substance of my response to your position. Indeed, the comment was in another context entirely, that of the tone you were adopting.

“Which scholars? Was it at your church? Was it at a church conference or something of the sort?”

I’ve attended a variety of conferences over the years, both at local universities and most recently one that (oh horrors!) was indeed held at a church that had conference facilitites. As for which scholars: that’s a longer list. Having been an atheist, I’ve gotten both sides. I didn’t mean to imply that my exposure to scholars was only by conferences: most of my exposure to their conclusions is by reading.

“Did I mention I’m well read? Maybe that seems like intellectual posturing to you.”

Well, seeing that this comes on top of listing your academic achievements (two academic scholarships; volunteering at a cultural museum, studying Greek and Latin) I’m wondering if you’re next going to tell me your SAT scores. Intellectual posturing? Maybe. I suspect that your desire to inform me of your intellectual prowess, however, comes from some insecurity in that area.

“You don’t need to be a scholar to ask this question. Nonetheless, the scholars themselves ask this question. Bart Ehrman, for example. Are you an expert in ancient cultures? If not, by your own standards, why do you think you have reason to object?”

No, you don’t need to be a scholar to ask or discuss this question. If, however, you are going to dismiss the possibilities that everyone else has offered in answer and take the stand that you have, then yes, I expect some background. I haven’t taken a stand here–you have. I have offered suggestions, along with the other posters, that might explain the gap in time that seems to concern you so. You have not really discussed them, but seem to dismiss them without consideration because of your already established position.

“That is what anyone with a stereotype would say, now isn’t it? ex.g., Based on my observations and experience Catholics are anti-intellectual, therefore this is not a stereotype.”

If you are basing your opinion on observations and experience, then you are correct: it would not be a stereotype.

“Then by your standards only scholars should discuss it, since only they have “substanace”. But you have basically tried to wedge any one out of argument who doesn’t agree to your biases. And in fact, this is an issue that scholars have raised. The fact that the gospels were written late is not in questin. Why they were written late is a dispute”

No, as I mentioned above, it is an interesting question and open to anyone to discuss. However, my objection to your responses is that you have persisted in your position that the Gospels COULD have been written earlier; and therefore the fact that they weren’t detracts from their reliability; without giving me any reason (based on your background) that you can judge what COULD and COULD NOT have been done at that time. All I’m trying to do is determine if you have any expertise that would warrant this attitude of yours.

“Really, maybe i’m an exception.”

Well, you come across sounding very much like I did when I was a young atheist…I don’t think I stood out as an exceptional atheist, though I certainly thought I was.