If Richard Dawkins Is Right

The Gospel Coalition ^ | 11/7/15 | Bernard N Howard

[SoFloFreeper]

“Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history. . . . The gospels are ancient fiction.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

---

If Dawkins is correct, one might imagine the following conversation . . .

Luke: Let’s have another round of drinks. I’ve an idea I want to run past you.

John: Sure. What’s on your mind?

Luke: You probably heard about the Nazarene named Jesus who was crucified yesterday. I think he could be the perfect candidate for our fake Messiah project.

Mark: One tiny problem: he’s dead!

Luke: Yes, but that means we’ll control the narrative. We’ll be in charge of his reputation.

Matthew: Who would follow a dead Messiah?

Luke: Nobody, so we’ll begin with a resurrection myth. We’ll hire some thugs to fight off the soldiers guarding his tomb so we can get rid of the corpse.

John: But a missing corpse isn’t the same as a resurrection.

Luke: You’re right, so we’ll have to persuade Jesus’s friends to spend the next 30 years telling everyone he’s risen from the dead, even if sticking to that story means they’ll be imprisoned or killed.

Mark: Okay, then what?

Luke: Well, to make a conspiracy credible you need precise details. So we’ll invent stories where Jesus interacts with people in specific locations.

Matthew: Won’t people just disprove the stories by visiting those places and asking around?

Luke: There’s no need to worry about that. We could invent a story about a synagogue ruler’s terminally ill daughter being healed, give the synagogue ruler a name, set it all in a particular place, and still no one—absolutely no one, not even the people living in that place—would trouble to fact-check. Everyone would simply swallow the story whole!

Mark: It sounds like we’re on safe ground there. But if we want people to follow Jesus, he’ll need a message. People have been waiting for the Messiah for centuries. He’s got to be worth listening to when he finally appears.

John: Good point. I’ll cook up some deep quotes.

Luke: Thanks, John. Mark’s right: you’ll need to put profound wisdom on Jesus’s lips that theological scholars can happily study for their entire careers.

John: Not a problem.

Luke: Guys, it will take us a while to put these documents together. We need to get communities of people worshiping Jesus in the meantime so that when our books come out they’ll get a good reception.

Mark: There’s a guy I know called Saul, he could help with that.

Luke: Saul the Pharisee? I can’t imagine him getting involved with this kind of thing.

Mark: Trust me, he’s our man. I see him leaving behind everything he’s been trained to do and planting congregations of Jesus worshipers throughout the Roman Empire, whatever it costs him personally—beatings, shipwrecks, and the like.

Matthew: Awesome. But Luke, can you just remind me, what’s the point of all this? I mean, what exactly do we get out of this?

Luke: Come on, Matt, it will be so much fun. We’ll watch people being brutally martyred, and we’ll know they’ve been deceived by our dishonest fiction! What’s not to like about that?

John: I agree with Luke. This is definitely worth years of effort on our part. Count me in.

Mark: Me too.

Matthew: I’ll do it if my name comes first in all the promotional material.

Luke: Deal. Let’s get to work.

[Bob434]

also, wouldn’t the fact that Christ was God mean He could speak any language He wanted to? (Some might argue he was bound by earthly limits, however, that does’;t hold as He routinely exceeded earthly law) It seems to me that holding Him bound to earthly law/rules is an attempt to discredit His deity- which seems t be a specialty of ‘scholars’ who look at everything through the prism of human limitations- which is odd since we are after all talking about God come to earth

[Bob434]

[[why would they care?]]

Because they can’t stand the idea that there may be a objective universal moral code written on everyone’s heart after all- And since if there is an objective universal moral code, it would imply there is a universal moral code Giver- and so it has become their lifelong endeavor to try to discredit the bible because the bible is the only real source from where an objective universal moral code can come from- If there’s no God, then there is no objective universal moral code- only an arbitrary subjective moral code which is interpreted and applied as seen fit based solely on the desires of the individual- in other words- to each their own, and no one will have the authority to declare the actions of another immoral

In the end, it is an attempt to declare themselves gods- with no need of an objective universal moral code giver

[tjd1454]

Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history.”

I'm calling BS on your post. What, pray tell, are your particular qualifications to pontificate on this subject? I have a B.A. in Biblical Studies, a M.A in Theological Studies, and a Ph.D. in Theology (all earned). I have taught the historical background of the Bible on site in Israel where I lived for years, so I suppose I have a right to comment. How about you?

You are parroting old, long discredited Graf-Wellhausen theories about the origin of the New Testament that originated in the higher criticism theories of the 19th century. Yes, they are THAT dated.

Even many years ago, as I sat in graduate-level seminars (in a university that was NOT conservative), the higher-critical theories of the origin of the New Testament were recognized as specious. Do not pretend that the late-dating of the New Testament is "settled science."

Contrary to your assertions, there is every reason to believe with confidence that every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew before A.D. 70. This per the eminent New Testament scholar A. T. Robinson. His findings have withstood the judgment of history.

Why do you attempt to mislead those on this forum? Your "assured conclusions" are outdated and discredited. We have in our possession actual fragments of New Testament texts dating to the end of the 1st Century (i.e. the John Rylands Fragment), which given the fact that these are copies of earlier documents, indicate that the actual authorship was much earlier.

Your discredited views assume that the early Christians were idiots who believed made-up stories with no basis in fact or history. There is no basis for this assumption, or for the wholly specious view that the religion of Christianity revolutionized the world based upon lies.

[angryoldfatman]

Certainly, but we’re not talking about what language Christ spoke or understood.

What TBP and I were discussing was New Testament manuscripts, the earliest of which were written in Greek.

The reason why they were in Greek was that Greek was the lingua franca of the time, even moreso than Latin. It was also why Gentiles were referred to in the New Testament as “Greeks” even if they came from some place nowhere near Greece - they didn’t know Hebrew, so they conversed with Judeans in Greek for the most part.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis

“An unusual modern scholar who supported the notion that the Synoptic Gospels were of an early date, specifically before 70, was John Robinson. Though generally considered a liberal theologian, his views in respect to the development of the Gospels were consistent with the Augustinian hypothesis. He wrote in his work Redating the New Testament that past scholarship was based on a “tyranny of unexamined assumptions” and an “almost wilful blindness,” concluding that New Testament was written before 64, and that there is no compelling evidence and little evidence of any kind that anything in the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple’s destruction. Furthermore, in relation to the four gospels, according to Norman Geisler:
“Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.”[41]

F.F. Bruce wrote a good book on the subject of the gospels;
“The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable.”

[Bob434]

sorry, I assumed he was making the case that because Christ spoke Aramaic that he couldn’t have been the one discussed I nthe gospel messages- and if that was the argument, I thought it an odd argument because of course Christ as God can speak any language

I misunderstood I guess- my apologies

[Bob434]

[[I have a B.A. in Biblical Studies, a M.A in Theological Studies, and a Ph.D. in Theology (all earned). ]]

so in other words, you don’t have much experience? J/K

[[You are parroting old, long discredited Graf-Wellhausen theories about the origin of the New Testament that originated in the higher criticism theories of the 19th century. Yes, they are THAT dated.]]

Which fits the old adage that there’s nothing new under the sun

[[We have in our possession actual fragments of New Testament texts dating to the end of the 1st Century (i.e. the John Rylands Fragment), which given the fact that these are copies of earlier documents, indicate that the actual authorship was much earlier.]]

Thank you for setting the record straight- many reading Tjd’s words would not have known that information- including myself-

[[Your discredited views assume that the early Christians were idiots who believed made-up stories with no basis in fact or history.]]

While at the same time, the ones accusing Christians of being idiots and believing made up stories, are themselves heralding made up stories about the time periods of the 4 gospels- ironic actually

[[There is no basis for this assumption, or for the wholly specious view that the religion of Christianity revolutionized the world based upon lies.]]

Yet such a specious view will be pursued with vigor non-the-less, unfortunately- The anger towards Christianity and Jews is just too great to ever cede otherwise- hence the rehashing of old discredited views about the gospel time period

[TBP]

The point, however, is that given that Jesus spoke Aramaic (and probably not Greek, given that he was a guy from out in the country), the writings in Greek are translating what he said.

Given that many Aramaic words have multiple meanings, the translator makes an editorial decision to pick this meaning over that one. And that decision is based on what? Presumably, on what the translator thinks Jesus must have meant. But given the multiple meanings, he may have intended another meaning entirely.

[TBP]

I have read several Biblical scholar/analysts who are strongly credentialed and knowledgeable in the field. They are very clear about the transcription errors, the edits, the editorial choices in translation, and the simple contradictions — and on the dating.

IN early Christianity, there was a wide range of beliefs, and there were numerous versions of the stories going around. They didn’t get written down for a while. It’s not as if Jesus and the Apostles had their own steno pool.

[Bob434]

[[Thank you for setting the record straight- many reading Tjd’s words would not have known that information- including myself-]]

Sorry TJD- that should have read

Thank you for setting the record straight- many reading TBP’s words would not have known that information- including myself-

[Bob434]

[[But given the multiple meanings, he may have intended another meaning entirely.]]

Sorry- the word of God is the Holy Inspired word of God-

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,2 Tim 3:16

“for all is inspired by God, or breathed by him: the Scriptures are the breath of God, the word of God and not men; they are “written by the Spirit”, as the Syriac version renders it; or “by the Spirit of God”, “

http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

There were no other meanings meant- no misunderstandings-

[TBP]

That’s your belief. It is certainly not provable (or falsifiable.)

Fallible human beings put it together.

[Bob434]

[[Fallible human beings put it together.]]

No sir, an infallible God did- Check Him out sometime- You won’t be disappointed!

[Bob434]

[[It is certainly not provable]]

Sure it is, He’ll prove it to you IF you wish Him to-

[Bob434]

[[Fallible human beings put it together]]

And just for the record- Fallible “strongly credentialed” scholars tout discredited hypothesis’ about the infallible word of God yet you have no problem believing their discredited agendas- Not sure why you’d choose to believe fallible man over infallible God who spoke through man via Holy inspiration- but whatever- it’s your choice

And just for the record, the bible could be falsified any number of ways IF it was actually false- The word of God is actually provable IF prophecies came true- and luckily for you and I they did- not just 20% true, not 50% not 75% but 100% true- psychics at best are only right approx. 60% of the time- Educated guesses around the same-

But again- put your faith in those secular writers who have never uttered a prophecy that came true In their life if you wish- I’ll bank on the word that was full of fulfilled prophecies

[angryoldfatman]

No problem, FRiend. :-)

[angryoldfatman]

>> The point, however, is that given that Jesus spoke Aramaic (and probably not Greek, given that he was a guy from out in the country), the writings in Greek are translating what he said.

So what.

>> Given that many Aramaic words have multiple meanings, the translator makes an editorial decision to pick this meaning over that one. And that decision is based on what? Presumably, on what the translator thinks Jesus must have meant. But given the multiple meanings, he may have intended another meaning entirely.

I see nothing specific here, nor do I see anything that knocks down the original thesis (that was coached in parody, of course).

In the matter of translation and meaning and whatnot, I would defer to tjd1454. Thanks.

[tjd1454]

I have read several Biblical scholar/analysts who are strongly credentialed and knowledgeable in the field. They are very clear about the transcription errors, the edits, the editorial choices in translation, and the simple contradictions — and on the dating.

That means nothing - and highlights a most curious phenomenon of willful ignorance that regularly occurs in Biblical studies. That is, one will wax on about the "fallibility" of the biblical writers while in the same breath accept without question the supposed infallibility of the so-called "experts" he or she has hand-picked to support the view they have chosen to believe.

Scholars have their biases, and unfortunately those prejudices are especially evident in biblical studies, where there is so much at stake. Those who reject biblical truth are not likely to teach and write in support of those truths - and in fact will spend their entire career attempting to tear down the authority of the Bible.

How many countless college students have had their faith undermined in "literature of the Bible" courses at secular universities by unbelieving professors who sowed seeds of doubt in their impressionable minds? After all, he or she is the professor - the expert - and surely they know what they are talking about?

In our society we have replaced the infallibility of Holy Scripture with the infallibility of the new Priestly Class: a secular and skeptic academia.

These are most serious matters: "Let not many among you become teachers, for they will receive a double judgment," and "Woe to anyone who leads these little ones astray."

TBP, knowingly or unknowingly, was attempting to do just that on this forum.

Just one more point worth mentioning: TBP makes much of the theory that the NT was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. Even accepting that as true would undermine his argument for the late date of the NT, for if we have an extant Greek NT fragment dating from around the end of C1 or early C2 - then that MS would of necessity be a translation of an EARLIER Aramaic MS. Thus we have pushed back the authorship of the NT to sometime in the first century - when there would still be witnesses alive who would certainly have pointed out any falsehoods or mistakes in the texts.

Full disclosure: I did not mean to present myself as an "expert" in this field, but rather felt an obligation to weigh in because of my training and experience to correct a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the New Testament texts.

I have, in fact, long-ago shifted my attention to other areas of theology, as in my most recent book: The Paranormal Conspiracy - the Truth about Ghosts, Aliens and Mysterious Beings. Even so, the defense of the full authority of the Bible is something which is near and dear to my heart.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

“Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history. . . . The gospels are ancient fiction.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

---

John and Matthew most definitely knew Jesus as they were His disciples and later apostles.

Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

it is remarkable how accurate our current Greek manuscripts are compared to those from antiquity.. We have over 5300 Greek manuscripts of the NT, more than any other ancient text, the closest being Homer’s Illiad, of which we have less than 700, with earliest dating to 500 AD.

---

The evidence for Christ and the veracity of the Gospels have been examined by Legal experts. They found them to be “Legally Sufficient” as evidence.