Take Care.

Yes. I assert it is impossible to stand on a hill and hear someone speak 2,400 words and then to write down those words accurately. Or even close. It cannot be done. It is not humanly possible.

I suggested that if you imagine otherwise, that you try it yourself. Read Jesus “speech” in Mt 5 – 7 then write it down. You didn’t do it. You can’t do it. It can’t be done.

What the bible claims to be true cannot be true. Mt is not “reliable” in the sense that Jesus really said the things Mt claims he said.

I call this a reasoned analysis of the evidence, proven by your failure to reproduce the impossible feat. Your contribution is to…to call all this “pre-conceived.”

Good. We have arrived at the point where our theories diverge.

In other words, at the time these “stories” were circulated, there were many people still alive who would have witnessed the events portrayed.

Please list all the people still alive who would have witnessed the magis’ secret meeting with Herod?

On what evidence do you form your theory about when the books first “circulated”?

Any of those people could have objected or pointed out errors in what was written. They did not!

Who told you they did not?

Secondly, you jump repeatedly from an argument that the gospels must include inaccurate quote to the argument that they are therefore fabricated and unreliable. Even if the gospel writers supplemented their accounts with “made up” dialog, and I am certainly not suggesting it to be the case, it does not mean that the events recounted in those accounts did not happen.

Well the “event” in Mt 5 – 7 was the 2,400 words Jesus didn’t really say. So that event certainly didn’t happen.

You are correct it doesn’t prove the events didn’t happen. It does prove that over and over the gospel writers recorded as true events that did not really happen.

Does the fact that over and over and over the gospel writers reported as facts things that did not really happen, does that make the other stuff they wrote, the stuff we can’t check, does that make that stuff MORE credible or LESS credible, according to your theory?

Now, let’s move on to some of your specific questions. I am, and was, aware that Greek philosophers sometimes utilized made up dialog in their writings. I am interested in your assertion that was a common “literary convention” and would be interested in hearing your support for that contention.

Herodotus writes with quotations more than 400 times.
Homer does it.
Hesiod does it.
Gilgamesh does it.
Lucian does it.
Philostratus does it — read Apollonius of T.
Thucidides not so much.
Tacitus does it
Diodorus Siculus does it.
Philo does it.

In fact impossible quotation was a strong Jewish tradition.
I have in mind the Old Testament. How do you imagine whoever wrote Genesis got verbatim quotes from God and Adam?
Balaam and the Ass?
God and Job?

One thinks as well of 1 Enoch. And Tobit. And the Gnositc gospels.

What ancient literature have you read that doesn’t include such quotation?

If I were to “discover that ancients frequently told history by inventing dialogue” it would not change my view of scripture as just because some writers employed that technique it would not follow that all writers must have.

I’m less interested in your conclusion than in the reasoning you use to reach it.

Is there a consistent analysis of the facts that can identify the impossible “quotations” in these other writers as impossible and yet, when applied to the Jesus stories, give a different result?

As far as the writers being eyewitnesses, Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and followed him during his earthly ministry. As far as a particular verse, I would encourage you to read Luke 1:1-4.

Yes, and Pilate was an eyewitness too. That does not indicate to me that Pilate was the true author of the Acts of Pilate. Does it to you? If not, why does the fact that Mt and Jn were in the stories indicate to you that they were the authors of books first attributed to them 100 years later?

Luke you admit was not an eyewitness.
Mk you apparently know was not an eyewitness in the legend.

Mt. you can provide no verse to confirm your theory that Mt was the actual author.

BTW, in formulating your theories about authorship, would it be important to you to know when the gospels were first quoted by other Christians? Or mentioned by other Christians?

For example, if the gospels were not mentioned by anyone for 100 years after the “events” in the stories, would that make it MORE likely or LESS likely that they were really eyewitness accounts, according to your theory?

What dates do you use for the first attestation and quotation from Mt, Mk, Lk and Jn?

Thank you once again for your input, and I hope you will continue to read the other installments in this series before drawing a final conclusion.

You’re welcome. I’m happy to help you work out the rough edges of your theory.

Bino Bolumai

/ In Bino Veritas /

Now, let’s move on to some of your specific questions. I am, and was, aware that Greek philosophers sometimes utilized made up dialog in their writings. I am interested in your assertion that was a common “literary convention” and would be interested in hearing your support for that contention. If I were to “discover that ancients frequently told history by inventing dialogue” it would not change my view of scripture as just because some writers employed that technique it would not follow that all writers must have. As far as the writers being eyewitnesses, Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and followed him during his earthly ministry. As far as a particular verse, I would encourage you to read Luke 1:1-4.

In response to your “the world is flat” argument, I would contend that this is an easy, and somewhat inflammatory argument, to throw out to avoid examining the evidence at hand. I believe the Bible because the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (including eyewitness testimony) supports that fact. That is why this is a 25 part series on why I believe the Bible. As a side note, the Bible doesn’t say that the Earth is flat. Finally, you argue that the idea that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of scripture could be applied to other religions. I would agree if all of the other evidence which supports the Bible were also true of those sources. For example, no other supposedly inspired literature is 100% accurate in its prophecy (something we will cover later in this series). Might point was, and is, not that I believe the Bible solely because the gospels represents eyewitness testimony. I believe the Bible for a number of reasons (25 of which I have or will cover in this series) all of which testify to its truth and reliability.

Thank you once again for your input, and I hope you will continue to read the other installments in this series before drawing a final conclusion.

First, you conclude that the gospel writers “probably, like everyone else back then, just make up quotes because that was the standard way to tell a story.” You offer no support for this contention. I’m sure you are aware that there are numerous written histories from similar time periods which are not questions. To conclude that everyone in that time period simply “made things up” is far reaching and inaccurate.

Not questioned? No, I am not aware that there are ancient histories that are not questioned. And I am certainly not aware of any ancient history with extended quotations that are not questioned.
Who told you that such things exist?
Which ones, and specifically which extended quotations, do you have in mind?

I am aware of the ancient practice of telling history through the literary device of invented dialogue. Let me ask you:

1. In arriving at your theory of gospel reliability, particularly the reliability of the gospels extended verbatim quotations, were you aware of this ancient literary convention?

2. If so, on what grounds do you distinguish the gospels\’ impossible extended quotations as \”reliable\” and the other as not?

3. Or, if you were to discover that ancients frequently told history by inventing dialogue, how would that affect your theory of the reliability of the stories in our gospels that are told via the literary device of extended quotation?

Secondly, you seem to conclude that because the writers could not have been eyewitnesses to certain things (like internal thoughts and dreams) that they could not be eyewitnesses to anything. Obviously this is not the case. That said, they could have been eyewitnesses to hearing about those thoughts and dreams.

I see I have not explained myself clearly. My quibble is not with the transmission of the so-called quotations, but with their acquisition in the first place.

According to Mt. 5 – 8 Jesus sat down on the mountain and spoke, in English translation, 2,400 words. He spoke them once, and \”Matthew\” wrote them down. Decades later. Verbatim.

Here\’s a test. Right now go read those 2,400 words. Then write them down exactly. Check your work. How\’d you do?

What \”Matthew\” claims to do is not possible .

What \”Matthew\” claims to do is not possible. \”Matthew\” made these conversations up. \”Matthew\” made stuff up. The stuff we read in \”Matthew\” did not happen the way \”Matthew\” said it did. \”Matthew\” cannot be trusted. The New Testament is not historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about there actually happened.

Regardless, they were certainly eyewitnesses (or talked to eyewitnesses) of important aspects of the gospel like the death of Jesus on the Cross, the resurrection and the accession.

Can you point me please to the verses in Mt, Mk, Lk that confirm that the authors were eyewitnesses?

Can you point me please to the verses where the authors say they spoke with eyewitnesses?

Finally, Jesus makes a point that he would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. This is how the gospel writers were aware of certain other undisclosed information. You refer (it seems disparagingly to this as ‘magic’). While it is not natural, it is supernatural in that it comes from God.

I see. So then you do agree that the internal evidence is certain: it is not physically possible that the gospel stories are true and reliable — witness the fabricated \”quotations\”. But you believe the stories are true anyway? Am I correct that this is essentially the The Earth Is Flat The Bible Says So reasoning?

Shall we agree your technique could also apply to belief in Zeus and Islam and Mormonism? The evidence proves they cannot be true, but believers believe anyway, certain that the holy spirit made it so?

The point of this article in the series is not that I believe everything in the Bible because there was an eyewitness to it. I believe everything in the Bible (including those parts which cannot be independently verified) because the parts which can be verified are supported by overwhelming truth.

And how is your belief affected by the certainty that the gospel writers cannot possibly have had access to the quotations they pretend to give?

Bino Bolumai

/ In Bino Veritas /

Secondly, you seem to conclude that because the writers could not have been eyewitnesses to certain things (like internal thoughts and dreams) that they could not be eyewitnesses to anything. Obviously this is not the case. That said, they could have been eyewitnesses to hearing about those thoughts and dreams. Regardless, they were certainly eyewitnesses (or talked to eyewitnesses) of important aspects of the gospel like the death of Jesus on the Cross, the resurrection and the accession. Finally, Jesus makes a point that he would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. This is how the gospel writers were aware of certain other undisclosed information. You refer (it seems disparagingly to this as ‘magic’). While it is not natural, it is supernatural in that it comes from God. Later in this series, we will look at Old Testament prophecies given hundreds and thousands of years prior to the birth of Jesus which were perfectly fulfilled in his life, death and resurrection. Those cannot be supported naturally and prove the supernatural origin of the text (that is, that it is the Word of God).

The point of this article in the series is not that I believe everything in the Bible because there was an eyewitness to it. I believe everything in the Bible (including those parts which cannot be independently verified) because the parts which can be verified are supported by overwhelming truth.

God bless you, and hope you will continue to follow this series and offer your input.

Sincerely,

Wayne
(aka Dad in the Middle)

I have in mind how often our gospels’ writers “quote” other people. Besides Jesus’ the gospels also record words of the disciples, Herod, angels, demons, Satan, tax collectors, and crowds of people all saying the same words all together. The gospels even record long speeches spoken in dreams, and verbatim accounts of inner thoughts that were never spoken, but that Jesus knew because He could read minds.

Here’s our reliability question : How’d they do that? How did the gospel writers know, all those decades later, exactly—word for word—what the angel said in Joseph’s dream, or Herod said in his secret meeting, or the Pharisees thought in their private thoughts but never spoke? What possible method could our gospel writers have used to come up with the verbatim quotations they claim to give?

Or did the gospel writers get all those “quotations” by just making them up? Is it more likely that “Matthew” knew the words Herod spoke in a secret meeting, or did “Matthew” probably, like everyone else back then, just make up quotes because that was the standard way to tell a story?

And if the only reasonable non-magical explanation is that the gospel writers got their “quotations” by making them up, then …. our gospel writers made stuff up. Just made it up. And it is not true the gospels are historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about in them actually happened.

Bino Bolumai

/ In Bino Veritas /