I Am Legend [An Atheist Reads the Bible - 13]

The Liar, Lunatic or Lord trilemma rebutted through a historical view of the New Testament.

-------------- ----------------- -------------------- ---------------------- -----
-------------- ----------------- -------------------- ---------------------- -----

--------------- --------------- -------- -----------
Annotations, Corrections, FAQ & Sources:
--------------- --------------- -------- -----------


Corrections:
---------------
(1)
User HConstantine pointed out to me that the water into wine miracle was the first miracle in John, not Mark. Not sure why I did that. I guess because it's my favorite miracle (number one in my mind!).

(2) User roohif correctly pointed out that I put Acts in the wrong place on the time line. Acts is believed to be written by the same author of Luke. Luke is a gospel and Acts deals with the events regarding the apostles after Jesus's death. It only makes sense that Acts follows Luke. It's probable that Acts was written between 90-100, some sources say later, and of course conservative estimates have it decades earlier.

(3) What Paul says or doesn't say about the Resurrection

I think this should go under "Clarifications," but I want to be clear that I'm not claiming that Paul doesn't address the resurrection. He clearly does. My point with his letters is that we don't get enough detail about Jesus. Think of it this way ... what if we never had the gospels (nor any substitute (gnostic, etc)? What would Christians claim to know about Jesus? Not very much.

(4) Paul may not have written II Thessalonians. There is a split among scholars as to whether this book was written by Paul, a follower, a huckster posing as Paul, etc. This doesn't really change anything with the video, but I wanted to point it out anyway.

Annotations:
---------------
(1)
Dating of the Gospels:

Here are the general parameters that I followed in the making of this video:

Mark: c. 68—73
Matthew: 80-85
Luke: c. 80-100, with a consensus around 85
John: 90--110 with the majority view being that it was written in stages


I am also fully aware of more conservative estimates placing the gospels much closer to the life of Jesus. However, the conservative estimates are in the extreme minority, and the dates provided here are the dates largely accepted by New Testament scholars. Should any of these dates fall out of that consensus, I will be more than happy to adjust accordingly. Please feel free to disagree, but understand for the sake of academic and intellectual honesty, I did try to give date ranges as opposed to specific years.

(2)
Authors of the Gospels

I didn't mention this in the video, but probably should have. I refer to Mark, Matthew, Luke & John as though the gospels were named after their authors. They weren't. I also refer to "Mark wrote this... Luke said this ...." However, it is agreed across the board by all scholars that we don't know who wrote the gospels. The names were given to each one at a later date.

(3)
The ending to Mark
There is a consensus among scholars that Mark originally ended at verse 8, and that everything after was an early addition.
Don't take my word for it. Look i up yourself. Start here and go for the more scholarly cites if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

FAQ:
---------------

The "Real" face of Jesus

Several are asking about the face of Jesus at the end (as well as in one of the timelines). It is a forensic depiction constructed by British scientists assisted by Israeli archeologists. See here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

While it's most likely NOT extremely accurate, it does show what the average person in Palestine looked like during that time. Jesus, if he really existed, was not a long-haired Caucasian.


Sources:

For dating of the New Testament books:

Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament,

Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985

Bart Ehrman. (1) A Brief Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA. 2004. (2) The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. Oxford University Press, USA. 2003. (3) Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, USA 2005 (4) Jesus Interrupted, HarperCollins, USA. 2009

For the dating of Paul's letters:
Pheme Perkins, Reading the New Testament: An Introduction (Paulist Press, 1988), pgs. 4-8


Herakles/Hercules:

Bullfinch's Mythology, 1885

Category:

Education

Tags:

• 43alley
• Atheist
• Reads
• the
• Bible
• Liar
• Lunatic
• or
• Lord
• C.S.
• Lewis
• atheism
• debate
• religion
• deconversion
• atheist
• read
• bible
• stories
• morality
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Sam
• Harris
• Daniel
• Dennett
• four
• horsemen
• Christianity
• Old
• New
• Testament
• Book
• Genesis
• Moses
• Jesus
• angels
• Decalogue
• Decalouge

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@43alley Sorry, but I have to disagree on one point. There is no good reason to believe that the 4 gospels originated in the 1st & early 2nd centuries. The historical record, which includes early Christian fathers’ citations, does not reveal any of our 4 gospels until the end of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) quotes the OT 314 times naming its authors 197 times, but he never quotes or names Matt., Mark, Luke & John. Irenaeus in 180 CE is the first one to disclose our 4 gospels.

[43alley]

@AgrippaTheMighty - You're unique to this comment section because I usually have to argue here that the gospels weren't written by contemporaries in the months after Jesus died. You have them being written centuries later :)

But I guess my response to you is the same that I make to religious: yours is a complaint that needs to be taken up with the consensus of New Testament scholars. In the description, I cite scholarly sources showing where I got the dates I did.

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@43alley Yeah, I see your point, but one could argue that almost all of the NT scholarship is Christian, and as NT historians they are not required to justify their claim like they do in science. Imho, these scholars solely rely on internal evidence because of their personal beliefs or because they are under pressure to not further upset the believers by pushing the dates back to the late 2nd cent. But, if I had created this video, I might have done the same thing you did.

[43alley]

@AgrippaTheMighty - It is predominantly Christian, but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.

I know it's a bit of a worn out recommendation, but if you want to see the scholarly evidence on NT book dating, check out Bart Ehrman. He was once a fierce believer but his own studies turned him from it. I recommend him not because of his non-belief but by his highly approachable writing style.

Check out the 3rd and 4th citations to Ehrman in the description. Or search him on YouTube.

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@43alley “…but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.” Please don’t take it the wrong way because I really like your videos including this one, but are you saying that if many believe so, it is so, and isn’t this an argument by consensus also called an argument ad populum?

[43alley]

@AgrippaTheMighty - It's not that argument at all because textual scholarship is not science. It's peer-reviewed history.  The evidence is compelling that the dates of the consensus is pretty accurate based on the available evidence.

NT textual scholarship (dealing with dating, etc, but NOT theological claims) is pretty intense (and interesting). Secular historians, anthropologists and geologists at times find themselves studying similar events (and this helps get at the truth).

[stauguastine]

The premise of your argument is flawed because C.S. Lewis was writing his Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument to an audience who accepted the existence of Jesus and accepted him as a mere prophet rather than God. In that context, his argument is perfectly sound as both C.S. Lewis and his intended audience accepted certain premises concerning Jesus as truthful. However, you are correct in asserting that this argument would not work in refuting atheism because the atheist may not accept those premises.

[EddieHitler1000]

If Jesus did exist why didn`t he write his theory`s down instead of relying on a bunch of guys writing years after he died and what about the apostle`s could they not write shit down.It is all a fantasy,and not a very good at that

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@gekritzl Yeah, I agree & you’re completely right. I concur with those daring scholars since like you said there are very good reasons to think that Jesus never existed or at least like this Youtube post declares, the Christ character has as much evidence as the Hercules/Heracles figure.

[gekritzl]

@AgrippaTheMighty - Agreed, although there are some scholars who make the claim. Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove Jesus even existed. Professor George A. Wells contends he's total myth. I believe Professor Robert M. Price is very skeptical Jesus existed (he was editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism). Then of course we have Tony Bushby, Joseph McCabe, Frank Zindler, DM Murdock, and others. It seems possible the Jesus that made it to the Bible was a composite figure.

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@gekritzl One thing is questioning Jesus’ words, and another thing is outright classifying Jesus as a myth, which is a much bolder declaration that’d take real balls of steel to make.

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@gekritzl Thank you for the video link. I watched it to about half an hour into it, but it wouldn’t play anymore. Though Ehrman does bring some facts to the table, he is still limited by what his own academic field let him say. He obviously doesn’t take the bible literally, but there are already major Christian religions that don’t take it literally, i.e. the Anglicans.

[gekritzl]

@AgrippaTheMighty - Prof. Ehrman usually begins first day of class with a pop quiz, 11 questions about the bible. Here he decided one day to try something new. Skip to 3:30 if you want to get straight to Ehrman and skip the intro. The whole video is great.

watch?v=Y3N4ymHO-eA

[AgrippaTheMighty]

@gekritzl About the links, sure no problem. That would have been a good choice for my user’s name, and I guess it could be understood that way. Nonetheless, I chose the Agrippa character in the game “Shadow of Rome” as my user name. And about Ehrman’s speech, no I haven’t seen or heard it.

[gekritzl]

@AgrippaTheMighty - Hey, I'm curious about your user name. Are you referring to Marcus Julius Agrippa, governor of Tiberias during the time of Jesus' supposed ministry, one of the many men who should have, but did not write about Jesus?

[gekritzl]

@AgrippaTheMighty - Very much appreciated, thanks. Have you seen the Ehrman lecture where he talks about the first day of class, asking if the students believe the bible is the word of god, then have they read The DaVinci Code... then, have they read the Bible? He chuckles at the response.