Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels

rewrite of authorship section

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.

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

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. Scholars regard the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John 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

M. David Litwa - "mythic historiography"

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

Dale Allison

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

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)

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)

You first changed diff

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

References

into

The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts,, 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. Nevertheless, they preserve sources that go back to Jesus and his contemporaries.

References

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, but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.

References

into

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

References

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Synoptic Gospels

@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)

@Drmies I wasn't sure if I successfully referred to you. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, considering that my information is from a verified source that has been published academically.

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

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)

I also don't see the relevance of this edit here. And the last sentence is indeed incomprehensible. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit is relevant because it describes how Matthew used Mark. Info does not have to directly answer the question "Are the Gospels reliable or not?" to be relevant. Note the preceding lines, which discuss the similarities and usage of sources among the Synoptics in great detail:

"Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they share many stories (the technical term is pericopes), sometimes even identical wording; finding an explanation for their similarities, and also their differences, is known as the synoptic problem, and most scholars believe that the best solution to the problem is that Mark was the first gospel to be written and served as the source for the other two - alternative theories exist, but create more problems than they solve. Since the third quest for the historical Jesus, the four gospels and noncanonical texts have been viewed with more confidence as sources to reconstruct the life of Jesus compared to the previous quests.

Matthew and Luke also share a large amount of material which is not found in Mark; this appears in the same order in each, although not always in the same contexts, leading scholars to the conclusion that in addition to Mark they also shared a lost source called the Q document (from "Quelle", the German word for "source); its existence and use alongside Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke seems the most convincing solution to the synoptic problem.

The Hebrew scriptures were also an important source for all three, and for John. Direct quotations number 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke, and 14 in John, and the influence of the scriptures is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included. Half of Mark's gospel, for example, is made up of allusions to and citations of the scriptures, which he uses to structure his narrative and to present his understanding of the ministry, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus (for example, the final cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is an exact quotation from Psalm 22:1). Matthew contains all Mark's quotations and introduces around 30 more, sometimes in the mouth of Jesus, sometimes as his own commentary on the narrative, and Luke makes allusions to all but three of the Old Testament books." Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the last sentence is understandable already, but I can make it clearer.

Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", making any claims that Matthew is significantly different from his sources very questionable.

Also minor errors are not a basis for removal, per WP: FIXFIRST. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A week after my proposal the only objections my edit has received is a WP:FIXFIRST issue about grammatical oddities and nominal objections to my content that were not substantively argued for. A claim that one cannot see the relevance of my edit without further clarification is not much different from an argument "I just don't like it" in my view. I think it is fitting that I restore my edit given this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish2024, you're yapping and yapping but you still don't have consensus for your edits. No, it is not fitting, and I am going to ask for you to be blocked from editing this article. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish2024, your edit is as follows, with the referenced sources deleted for easier reading:

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", making any claims that Matthew is significantly different from his sources in terms of historicity questionable.

Are you suggesting that Matthew derived the Markan material in his gospel via oral dependence on Mark? That's very much outside the general academic understanding. If you don't mean that, what do you mean? Perhaps you mean that both Mark and Matthew derive their shared material from oral tradition? That also is well outside the academic consensus as I understand it. And what on Earth is "scribal memory competence"? And if Kirk is praising Matthew's "esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", then he's saying that Matthew derives his material from Mark and Q. And the final statement that "any claims that Matthew is significantly different from his sources in terms of historicity questionable seems to be your own gloss (a mistaken one) on your sources. Achar Sva (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)