# Lies in the bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283 "2011-03-28T17:30:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/41 "2011-03-30T02:08:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Word. Ehrman is a funny fellow, producing serious Bible scholarship but also churning out books with titles designed to be provocative. Those who pick up the books and read them then find that the contents have little or nothing to do with the title; indeed, according to the definition Ehrman puts forward in this column many of his titles are “lies”. For example, if you only saw the title of [Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why](http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301413023&sr=1-1), you’d come away with a highly erroneous impression of what’s in the book. It deals only with the New Testament, not the entire Bible; it says very little about anyone “misquoting” Jesus; the changes under discussion involve only a fraction of percent of the text of the New Testament; and it doesn’t actually tell us “who changed the Bible and why”, but instead gives us only a few speculations. Ehrman did not choose that title and was not happy with it. He wanted to call the book _Lost in Transmission_, which would have been in keeping with two prior titles (_Lost Christianities_ and _Lost Gospels_), but the publisher wanted something more provocative and chose _Misquotong Jesus_ against his will. He himself though the title was misleading. > [@](#): > > The particular column linked to by the OP is a definite example of ‘bad Ehrman’ rather than ‘good Ehrman’, chiefly in that it’s not explicating scholarship but just using it as an excuse to bash groups of Christians, as in quote such as “the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women”; I know many Catholic and Evangelical women and all would be extremely surprised to learn that they’re being silenced or oppressed. Ehrman didn’t say _all_ church leafesr, but, in point of fact, there are still demoninations that do it. > [@](#): > > It also errs in a number of other points, such as the el cheapo implication that anybody who disagress with Ehrman on the authorship issue must be a “fundamentalist” who’s uninterested in facts. When it comes to Biblical scholars, that is true. Traditional authorships are defended only by religious apologists, and not from a basis of critical scholarship.l authorship.) > [@](#): > > Furthermore Ehrman is wrong about this: > > This is a gross oversimplification of the concept of authorship in ancient times. To associate a work with an author _might_ mean that the author actually put pen to paper and wrote the work, but it also might mean that the author presented it orally and someone else wrote it down, or that the author created some material and someone else added to it, or so forth. You misunderstand what Ehrman was saying. He was saying nobody ever appended prior work and attributed it to the original author (we have the book of Isaiah as a great example of that). he was saying that it was not considered acceptable, as it is sometimes claimed, to completely fabricate something and attribute it to another author. The pseudoepigraphs in the NT are complete fabrications, not emendations to the claimed authors. They are outright forgeries. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/42 "2011-03-30T02:38:19Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The belief that St. Paul did not write 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, and that St. John, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude did not write the epistles attributed to them is a scholarly consensus, rather than something that is obviously true. > > New Testament authors make astonishing assertions about Jesus: most obviously that he performed a lot of miracles, including his own resurrection. These miracles are embarrassing to secular scholars of the New Testament. These secular scholars are attracted to the person of Jesus, or they would be scholars of something else. Nevertheless, they assume a priori that the miracles did not happen. Why? Well because miracles _do_ not happen. > > On the basis of this assumption, they place late dates for the Gospels, deny that St. Matthew and St. John wrote the gospels attributed to them, and they deny that St. John, St. Peter, St. James and St. Jude could have written the epistles attributed to them, even though the authors claim to be these saints. If eye witnesses wrote parts of the New Testament, and if they talked to others who did also, the miracles are more likely to have happened. > > Secular scholars are most prone to acknowledge that St. Luke, a traveling companion to St. Paul, did write the Gospel According to St. Luke, and Acts, but they give dates as late as after 80 AD for these books. > > I cannot read the ancient Greek. I have read the New Testament in several different English translations. St. Paul is generally believed to have been martyred before 66 AD, when the Jewish Uprising began. The Jewish Uprising was finally crushed in 73 AD. It is important in evaluating the New Testament, because it devastated the Holy Lands. It resulted in the destruction of written accounts to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus. It also resulted in death and dispersal of eye witnesses to those events. Anything in the New Testament written before the Jewish Uprising is bound to be more accurate than anything written later. > > From my reading of Acts I cannot see anything in it that indicates that it was written after St. Paul was executed. While reading the Gospels one is often reminded that Jesus is going to be crucified. There is nothing like this in Acts. The book ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader has been told that he has broken no Roman laws, and no Jewish laws. Jews visit him to hear about Jesus. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced, but the conversations are cordial. There is no suggestion of approaching doom. > > If Acts was written before 66 AD, the Gospel According to St. Luke was written earlier. The Gospel of St. Mark is usually considered by the secular scholars to have been a source for the Gospel of St. Luke. An early date for Luke, and Acts, would mean an earlier date for Mark. This would mean that all three books were written when eye witnesses to the life and death of Jesus were available as sources, and that they were almost certainly consulted. Wow. Almost all of this is wrong. You didn’t even get the date of the destruction of Jerusalem right. The way the books of the NT are dated has nothing to do with miraculous claims, but by such things references to dateable historical events and to dependence on prior works. There is a lot more than that, none of it quick or simple to explain, but none of it having to do with “secular” rejection of miracles either. In point of fact, most critical scholarship has been done by believers. Mark knws about the destruction of Israel, therefore Mark is post-70 (just like you would assume that anything you read which shows knowledge of 9/11 was written after 9/11, even if it portrayed somebody allegedly “predicting” it). Matthew and Mark are both dependent on Mark, which makes them both necessarily post-70 as well, and more like post-80 since it took roughly ten tears for books to become widely copied and disseminated (they didn’t just hit the stores like they do to day). Luke also arguably (I would say [i[very\* arguably) shows knowledge of Josephus’ _Jewish Antiquities_, which was written about 93 CE. Luke does show knowledge of Paul’s death, by the way - Acts 20:25. The authorship traditions of the Gospels are refutable in numerous ays (especially Matthew) having nothing to do with some imagined “secular” conspiracy to deny miracles (though it would be pretty piss poor scholarship to accept any supernatural claim at face value). ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/43 "2011-03-30T03:19:36Z")
Seeing this topic, it reminded me of another rather erudite thread from some time past that might be of interest to the OP and others participating. It was however closed and locked for no apparently logical reason, so I couldn’t perform a “Lazarus”, as I wanted to… [Do we have accurate copies of the bible?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=332804&highlight=tower+babel) ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/44 "2011-03-30T12:02:45Z")
Heck, Daniel knew about the destruction of Jerusalem after the killing of a Messianic Prince- was Chapter 9 written after 70 AD? And the last holdout of the Jewish Uprising was finally squashed in 73 AD at Masada. Re the World Trade Center’s destruction- Google up “World Trade Center”, “Steve Jackson” and “Illuminati New World Order” (the 1995 card game) for a weird coincidence. Have you read John A.T. Robinson’s REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT? A post-70 AD writing of all or most of the NT is not settled. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/45 "2011-03-30T12:39:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Wow. Almost all of this is wrong. You didn’t even get the date of the destruction of Jerusalem right. I did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem. It happened in 70 AD. The Jewish Uprising ended in 73 AD with the fall of Masada. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/46 "2011-03-30T12:46:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Mark knws about the destruction of Israel, therefore Mark is post-70 (just like you would assume that anything you read which shows knowledge of 9/11 was written after 9/11, even if it portrayed somebody allegedly “predicting” it). The Gospel of Mark has a few passages which seem to allude to the Jewish Uprising, but he no where specifically mentions it. The fact that such an important event is no where specifically mentioned in any of the gospels inspired John A.T. Robinson to write Redating the New Testament. In this book Robinson argued that all of the gospels, even that of St. John, was written before 66 AD. Robinson was a bishop of the Church of England. However, in his early book, Honest to God, he expressed a theology that was almost agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/47 "2011-03-30T12:49:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Matthew and Mark are both dependent on Mark, which makes them both necessarily post-70 as well. You of course meant, “Matthew and Luke.” In my comment I acknowledged that Luke probably used Mark as a source. I said that an early date for Luke meant an earlier date for Mark. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/48 "2011-03-30T13:11:33Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Heck, Daniel knew about the destruction of Jerusalem after the killing of a Messianic Prince- was Chapter 9 written after 70 AD? Daniel 9 refers to the sacking of Jerusalem by Antiochus in 168 BCE. The murder of an “anointed one” refers to the murder of the high priest, Onias III (all high priests were “anointed ones”) The “anointed prince” referred to by Daniel is a different character altogether, and refers to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon. > [@](#): > > Have you read John A.T. Robinson’s REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT? A post-70 AD writing of all or most of the NT is not settled. In mainstream critical scholarship, it is very much settled. Bishop Robinson’s was not a credentialed historian or critical scholar and his dating of the NT, while embraced by traditionalsits, has not been taken seriously in mainstream scholarship. Robinson also thought all of the Pauline epistles were authentic - something you’d be hard put to find even conservatives to defend anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/49 "2011-03-30T13:13:09Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > You of course meant, “Matthew and Luke.” In my comment I acknowledged that Luke probably used Mark as a source. I said that an early date for Luke meant an earlier date for Mark. Matthew and Luke, yes. Both are abjectly dependent on Mark (as well as Q). There is no earlier date possible for Luke, though. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/50 "2011-03-30T13:36:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Luke does show knowledge of Paul’s death, by the way - Acts 20:25. After reading your comment, I re read my copy of the New Jerusalem Bible from Acts 20 to 28 where it ends. These chapters include quite a few "we’ and “us” references which I, and many Bible scholars, believe refer to St. Luke himself, meaning that this is an eye witness account. Although Paul expects to be persecuted, and acknowledges that he may be executed, nowhere did I read any mention that he was executed. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/51 "2011-03-30T13:43:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The authorship traditions of the Gospels are refutable in numerous ays (especially Matthew) having nothing to do with some imagined “secular” conspiracy to deny miracles (though it would be pretty piss poor scholarship to accept any supernatural claim at face value). I am not assuming any secular conspiracy to deny the miracles. The great majority of the secular scholars do not deny the miracles, they certainly do not prove that they did not happen. However, the assumption that the miracles did not happen would incline them to choose late dates for the writing of most of the New Testament books. If the authors used as reference material oral traditions they heard from those who were not eye witnesses the miracles are less accurately attested to, than if the authors were able to talk to eye witnesses. In chapter 28:8-10 Luke, who has joined the narrative, recounts miraculous cures of people on Malta, where the ship that was taking St. Paul and St. Luke to Rome was ship wrecked. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/52 "2011-03-30T13:59:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Matthew and Luke, yes. Both are abjectly dependent on Mark (as well as Q). > > There is no earlier date possible for Luke, though. Q has been reconstructed from passages that Luke and Matthew share, which are not found in Mark. Q is usually considered to have been written from an oral tradition. In 1945 four primitive gospels not found in the New Testament were discovered at Nag Hammadi. One of them, The Gospel of St. Thomas, resembled the reconstructed Q. I unfortunately do not have my copy in front of me. Nevertheless, one of these primitive gospels says that after the crucifixion various apostles wrote accounts of the ministry of Jesus. That seems plausible to me. Eusebius, who wrote his History in the forth century, said that St. Matthew wrote an account of the ministry of Jesus. The editors of the Jerusalem Bible accept the theory that the Gospel of St. Matthew that appears in the New Testament was composed largely from Mark and Q. They suggest that passages not found in either, or in Luke, come from a more primitive gospel written by St. Matthew. Many who unlike John A. T. Robinson believe that the Gospel of St. John was not written in its final form by the apostle, nevertheless, believe that part of it did come from an account written by St. John. My theory is that the Gospel of St. Thomas was written by the apostle St. Thomas, and that another apostle wrote Q. Keep in mind, all of this is necessarily speculative. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/53 "2011-03-30T14:21:21Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am not assuming any secular conspiracy to deny the miracles. The great majority of the secular scholars do not deny the miracles, they certainly do not prove that they did not happen. However, the assumption that the miracles did not happen would incline them to choose late dates for the writing of most of the New Testament books. If the authors used as reference material oral traditions they heard from those who were not eye witnesses the miracles are less accurately attested to, than if the authors were able to talk to eye witnesses. All of this is irrelevant. The number of “secular scholars” who have spent any time worrying over scripture is a tiny fraction of the overall number of scholars who have investigated them and the overwhelming majority of the religious scholars side with the later dates. Pick up a copy of The New Jerome Biblical Commentary some time, and read the passages dating the various works of the New Testament. Then note the authors of the various sections. None of them are “secular” scholars. (Heck, you can pick up a copy of the 40+ year old The Jerome Biblical Commentary or Kümmel’s Introduction to the New Testament from the late 1960s and find much of the same information with the same mix of religious scholars as authors carrying on the tradition of scholarship from earlier in that century.) Later dating is neither secular prejudice nor a new idea. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/54 "2011-03-30T14:23:28Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The editors of the Jerusalem Bible accept the theory that the Gospel of St. Matthew that appears in the New Testament was composed largely from Mark and Q. They suggest that passages not found in either, or in Luke, come from a more primitive gospel written by St. Matthew. Hmm. I don’t think I’ve seen that theory before, but it would explain how Matthew’s name came to be attached to that Gospel. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/55 "2011-03-30T15:27:08Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > After reading your comment, I re read my copy of the New Jerusalem Bible from Acts 20 to 28 where it ends. These chapters include quite a few "we’ and “us” references which I, and many Bible scholars, believe refer to St. Luke himself, meaning that this is an eye witness account. Although Paul expects to be persecuted, and acknowledges that he may be executed, nowhere did I read any mention that he was executed. He says it’s the last time they will see him, which means the author knew Paul had been executed. In Acts 28:30, the author also says that Paul lived in Rome for two years, which is an elliptal way of saying that’s when he died. The lack of an explicit mention of Paul’s alleged martyrdom in Acts is not evidence of a pre-70 date in any case. Luke was circumspect about it for the same reason the synoptic Gospels are circumspect about Pilate’s involvement in the crucifixion - he didn’twant to antagonize the romans. He knows that his audiemce knows what happened to Paul, but he ends his narrative by saying that Paul continued to preach “unhindered” in Rome “for two years.” This shows clear awareness of Paul’s execution, but glosses the details for politic reasons and his statemnet that Paul preached for those two years “ἀκωλύτως” - “without restriction,” “unhindered”) for two years is a little disingenuous since it elides the fact that he was (allegedly) killed after those two years. The author was trying not to make waves. Luke’s story was finished then anyway. He wasn’t writing a biography of Paul, but an apologia for the Pauline Christian movement. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/56 "2011-03-30T15:40:46Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am not assuming any secular conspiracy to deny the miracles. The great majority of the secular scholars do not deny the miracles, they certainly do not prove that they did not happen. However, the assumption that the miracles did not happen would incline them to choose late dates for the writing of most of the New Testament books. The plausibility or impluausibility of miracles has absolutely notrhing to do with how the books are dated with the exception of the fact that scientific methodology does not permit an acceptance that people can predict the future (that is, any writing which shows specific knowledge ofa historical event had to have been written _after_ that event). > [@](#): > > If the authors used as reference material oral traditions they heard from those who were not eye witnesses the miracles are less accurately attested to, than if the authors were able to talk to eye witnesses. There are no eyewitness testimonies to any of the allged miracles of Jesus. > [@](#): > > In chapter 28:8-10 Luke, who has joined the narrative, recounts miraculous cures of people on Malta, where the ship that was taking St. Paul and St. Luke to Rome was ship wrecked. Faith healing is, and always has been, a commonplace superstition, but since alleged eyewitness testimonies of miraculous healing are impressive to you, check out what Tacitus said the Roman Emperor Vespasian did in front of witnesses: > [@](#): > > In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor’s knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar’s foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. “In the one case,” they said, “the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar’s, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.” And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood. [_Histories_ 4:81](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusHistory04.html) Also, not to put to fine a point on it, but first hand accounts of “miraculous” events are also a fairly common feature of fiction - something we know the author of Luke-Acts was perfectly capable of. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/57 "2011-03-30T16:03:30Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Q has been reconstructed from passages that Luke and Matthew share, which are not found in Mark. Q is usually considered to have been written from an oral tradition. No, Q is a Greek literary composition, not a transcription from an oral tradition (which would have been Aramaic), but it probably does ultimatly have an origin in some kind of oral sayings traditions (it just had to go through a couple of changes before it became Q). > [@](#): > > In 1945 four primitive gospels not found in the New Testament were discovered at Nag Hammadi. One of them, The Gospel of St. Thomas, resembled the reconstructed Q. I unfortunately do not have my copy in front of me. Nevertheless, one of these primitive gospels says that after the crucifixion various apostles wrote accounts of the ministry of Jesus. That seems plausible to me. Thomas is a sayings Gospel like Q. It does not say anything about the crucifixion. The rest of the Nag Hammadi books are not “primitive,” they are 2nd and 3rd Century apocrypha whose content has little or no historical validity. > [@](#): > > Eusebius, who wrote his History in the forth century, said that St. Matthew wrote an account of the ministry of Jesus. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying that Matthew wrote a sayings Gospel ofJesus in Hebrew, but Canonical Matthew is neither a sayings Gospel, nor was it written in Hebrew. The assignment of that author to Canonical Matthew is essentially baseless, especially since it is dependent on secondary sources like Mark and Q. > [@](#): > > The editors of the Jerusalem Bible accept the theory that the Gospel of St. Matthew that appears in the New Testament was composed largely from Mark and Q. They suggest that passages not found in either, or in Luke, come from a more primitive gospel written by St. Matthew. The material original to Matthew is mostly the material where (as with Luke), he does not have Mark or Q as a guide and is forced to create on his own - basically this amounts to the infancy and appearance narratives where Matthew and Luke (both lacking sources for that material) go off in wildly divergent directions. > [@](#): > > Many who unlike John A. T. Robinson believe that the Gospel of St. John was not written in its final form by the apostle, nevertheless, believe that part of it did come from an account written by St. John. This is actually possible, but that material would not include any of the miracles or the resurrection. Those are later accretions. > [@](#): > > My theory is that the Gospel of St. Thomas was written by the apostle St. Thomas, and that another apostle wrote Q. This is not impossible (though, both Q and Thomas appear to be layered works - i.e. new material was added over time, and it is more likely that they were based on a prior oral tradition rather than written directly by apostles), but it should be pointed out that neither Thomas nor Q have any miracle stories, nor do they say anything about the resurrection. They are both just sayings gospels - stuff Jesus said - with very little narrative naterial. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/58 "2011-03-30T16:08:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He says it’s the last time they will see him, which means the author knew Paul had been executed. In Acts 28:30, the author also says that Paul lived in Rome for two years, which is an elliptal way of saying that’s when he died. In Acts 20:25 St. Paul says, "And now, behold, I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. In 21:13 he predicted his death in Jerusalem. Also, by then he was several decades older than the average life expectancy at the time. Finally, transportation at the time was slow and dangerous. For all of these reasons, it was reasonable for St. Paul to give his friends a permanent goodbye. Acts 28:30 reads, “And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him.” Many scholars believe that after his visit to Rome he traveled to Spain. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/59 "2011-03-30T16:17:10Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Both of you are being way too dismissive about the intellectual integrity of many believers. I learned all about this biblical scholarship in college over 20 years ago (private non-religious university) and did not “not believe” it or “hand wave it away.” Neither did my religion professors (who were believers); nor most of the students in my classes, nor most of the clergy I have met in my lifetime - and I am active enough in the church to know dozens of priests. While this is likely true, I’m skeptical that any more than a minority of the laity really cares–and you didn’t really address that, so I’m curious of your thoughts. You also need to draw a distinction between “priests” (here I’m assuming things based on your choice of title) who have gone to seminary and studied theology, vs. the more numerous “preachers”, “pastors”, and “reverends” who may or may not have done so. My experience has been that the average lay believer, when presented with historical studies and evidence disputing authorship (or, for that matter, translation accuracy) will have one of the following two responses: 1. “You’d have to talk to my minister–I don’t know about all that, but he says differently and I’m listening to him.” 2. “God wouldn’t let the copy of the Bible that I am reading be an inaccurate guide to his Word and desires, therefore you are wrong and your evidence is irrelevant.” While I acknowledge the possibility of a 3) “That’s interesting, give me some sources so I can read more about that and consider it.”, I’ve never personally encountered it outside of a Religious Studies classroom setting. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283/60 "2011-03-30T16:18:51Z")
On the basis of what do they believe that? You are also still stuck with all the evidence FOR a post 70 (really post-80, and probably post-90) dating for Luke-Acts. The fact that Luke didn’t want to say anything directly about thr Romans killing Paul does not make that evidence go away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-in-the-bible/576283.md?page=4)