Talk:Gospel

Lead

@Silverfish2024: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which is not what you are doing; you are pushing a specific pov. The statement

...they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources or even reliable for Jesus.

is problematic for several reasons:

• "they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus" - to my best knowledge, there is very little reliable knowledge about Jesus that scholars can extract from the Gospels;
• "most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources [...] for Jesus" - Sanders, EB: "The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus" - that's a subtle difference;
• "or even reliable" - the pov of Dunn cannot be generalized to "most scholars."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above. Your claim that very little is known about Jesus does not seem to be what most scholars tend to think. My edit said 'useful or reliable', with Dunn's view being the latter, so I would not think I was claiming Dunn's view to be the absolute majority. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim the Gospels provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus has been on this page for a long time now (I don't know who first put it in).

Where did you get the idea almost nothing about Jesus is known? Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is what we consequently have argued on Wikipedia against the Christ Myth theory supporters, that very lityle seems to be sure, except his existence, baptism, and crucifixion; see the lead of Historical reliability of the Gospels.

Your quote from Sanders, EB, is WP:CHERRYPICKED; a fuller quote is

John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked.

You should seriously consider if Wikipedia is the best place for you to vent your convictions; I don't think so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Synoptic Gospels, not John, are the primary sources for Jesus, and it is good that you specified as such.

I still disagree with your first point. According to Casey, "the attestation of Jesus' ministry of exorcism and healing is so strong that the majority of New Testament scholars have argued that the tradition had a historical kernel." Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account- page 237

Sanders has argued for 11 statements about Jesus almost beyond dispute. Of course there is not too much certain about Jesus, but I think there is a lot likely to be true. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have tried my best to provide mainstream, high-quality sources and wish not to misrepresent them in any way. I would like to say I have an open mind about this subject, and if you feel I have misused any of my sources, feel free to object. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus"

You re-added diff "providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus" to the lead, with the argument EP Sanders is probably as mainstream as it gets, and his claim has been on this page for years. No reason to delete it now. It's still there, in Gospel#Genre and historical reliability, sourced to Reddish (2011) p.21-22, and Sanders (1995) p.4-5. Reddish doesn't say so, on tbe contrary. Sanders does say so indeed, but cannot be generalized, certainly not in the lead. You're messing-up, just to push through your convictions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; I believe Reddish was the source for the claim that scholarship could distinguish between authentic material and later Church tradition before you deleted it and updated it with Keith's view (an action I support- I think he and Le Donne are rising stars in the field). I did not mean to mislead readers about my source for "a good idea of the public career of Jesus".

Thank you for keeping Sanders and Dunn's views; they are definitely some of the best scholars of Jesus this generation, and their views have arguably held up to this day. Thanks also for including Keith's work. It is important to be aware of trends in scholarship and to keep Wikipedia updated. And thank you once again for reaching out and bearing with me through our disagreement about this page. I hope there is no ill will between us and wish you the best. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

I added that many, perhaps most scholars, view the author of Luke-Acts as an eyewitness to the Apostle Paul, presumably via the "we passages". I did not touch the claim that the Gospels are not eyewitnesses, though I specified that this was referring to Jesus. Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

“Made to convince people” NO!

The gospels were not created to convince people Jesus was the son of God and the word charismatic is unneeded and feels disrespectful.

The Bible, in the eyes of the followers of Jesus, is the word of God. It was made to SPREAD the word, translated so that as many people could read it to spread Jesus’ message as Jesus told his apostles that that was their mission after he passed. The gospels are the good news that Jesus has saved us.

There is a massive difference in sharing news and convincing. One allows for your own brain to think and choose, one may be deceptive. The gospels were written so that God’s free will always remains.

Which means take it or leave it but it’s not a tool TO convince someone. The Bible is NOT there to convince you, it is there to teach, spread the word, and share the gospel, the good word that we are saved.. It’s not some con job attempt.

please do better and do not choose a side, be neutral. This is not neutral, this is all atheist perspective. 108.53.6.160 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editors aren't atheists. Do not conflate mainstream Bible scholarship with atheism. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

Fifth Edition (2018)

Introduction to The Gospels

Page (1380)

"neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They are not eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’s life and teaching. Even the language has changed." Vejeke (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

apocrypha

@Joshua Jonathan Some scholars think that the "Odes of Solomon" and the "Ascension of Isaiah", which are older than the "Gospel of Mary", include the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I'm not exactly sure of the best wording for conveying that the "Gospel of Mary" includes the concept first in the view of some scholars but not in the view of others. I think this phrase might even be best left out, as accurately wording it could result in a difficult and confusing sentence to read and I don't know what benefit mentioning it brings to the article. 987123123Adjective (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

@Achar Sva Please stop trying to delete huge swathes of reliably sourced material you seem to disagree with. My claim about the Gospels being written within eyewitness lifetimes is supported by Bas van Os's statistical analysis, published by T&T Clark, and the renowned Ed Sanders's classic book on the historical Jesus. Scholarship assumes that the Gospels rely on oral traditions and memories of Jesus (Ehrman 2012). In fact, as far as I can tell there are no major works ever arguing or disagreeing with my claims, let alone a consensus. Also much of the material you blanked is not related to eyewitnesses, but you removed them without cause regardless. Can you provide any sources for the consensus you assert? Silverfish2024 (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish, your additions to the article (and they are editions - the article has been stable without them for a very long time)tle ignore the scholarly consensus in favour of an extreme Evangelical hypothesis. The consensus is more sophisticated, and is summarised in the article as follows:

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death, his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations, but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[56] The stages of this process can be summarized as follows:[57]

   *Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
   *Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
   *Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels – the dedicatory preface of Luke, for example, testifies to the existence of previous accounts of the life of Jesus.[58]
   *Gospels formed by combining proto-gospels, written collections, and still-current oral tradition.

You can find the sourcing in the article. I hope this clarifies things for you, but please desist from trying to add your material to the article wile this talk page discussion is in progress.Achar Sva (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that other written Gospels existed prior to the canonical ones does not conflict with the existence of oral tradition or eyewitness involvement in it. Indeed, your quote notes that the oral traditions was 'still-current' by the time the Gospels were formed. Your edit summary claiming "the consensus is that all the gospels rely largely on written mazterial" is clearly false, as Chris Keith attests:

...there remains considerable disagreement among Q advocates regarding what exactly Q was...Some consider Q a literary product, while others consider it subliterary. There is also disagreement over its stages of development, how scholars are to reconstruct those stages, how those stages relate to particular socio-historical circumstances, and even whether the early stages might actually be oral tradition.

...there is no incontrovertible evidence that the Jesus tradition circulated in these forms prior to the textualization of Mark's Gospel. Therefore, although I do not deny the possibility of pre-Markan written Jesus tradition, I affirm a robust interaction of oral, and written tradition before, during, and after Mark's textualization...I nevertheless commence with Mark's Gospel as the first clear instance of narrativized Jesus tradition in the written medium.

Keith, C. (2020). The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early history of the Jesus Tradition as material artifact. page=75-77.

Instead, James Dunn notes that scholars largely agree Jesus' life and sayings were preserved orally and that this oral transmission was the source of the canonical Gospels in his book The Oral Gospel Tradition pp 290-291. To put it simply, I argue that the Gospels we have today are the result of the textualization at least in large part of oral traditions ultimately originating from and shaped by contemporaries of Jesus, alongside the necessary interaction with the present of the Christian churches where they were written, and the academy agrees with this.

Your claim that I am pushing an "extreme Evangelical hypothesis" is simply not true. All my sources are highly respected mainstream scholars who publish with mainstream academic presses. van Os was with T&T Clark, and Alan Kirk quoted him as well. EP Sanders was a professor at Duke and revolutionized scholarship around Paul, the historical Jesus, and Second Temple Judaism, an extraordinary feat. Helen Bond (University of Edinburgh) claimed she "can't imagine any book, or course, or even conversation about Jesus that doesn't start-and often end-with the work of E.P. Sanders". Samuel Byrskog is professor at the University of Lund (not an Evanglical seminary) and was the President of the Swedish Academy of Biblical Studies from 2003 to 2008 and chaired seminars at SNTS. Dale Allison (Princeton Theological Seminary), who has nothing to do with my eyewitness claim, though you deleted him nevertheless, is a leading historical Jesus scholar - Chris Keith actually called him the best scholar alive today on a podcast, which I can link if you would like. I could go on and defend every source I edited in, but this should suffice.

Summary: My edits concerning eyewitnesses and oral tradition are academically mainstream and consistent with the view the final written Gospels were written by noneyewitnesses, as is the consensus, while your claims about written Gospels before the canonical Gospels being the consensus neither conflict with my edits nor are necessarily true. I strongly argue that your removal of my content is misguided. Silverfish2024 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to Talk. First, you say that I claim that were written gospels before the canonicals, but I made no such claim. I'm at a loss as to where you get this idea.

Second, you seem to be pushing the idea that the four gospel-writers relied on eyewitness accounts. This is not the consensus, which is as set out in the dot-points copied above - eyewitness accounts lay in the distant background, but the writers were getting this at second or third or fourth hand. They were also quite happy to simply make things up, such as the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Disentangling the oldest layers from those that came later is probably the major occupation of modern technical biblical study today.

Third, my problem with your edits is that they simplify a very complex picture, giving the quite erroneous impression that the gospels are based on direct eyewitness testimony. Only the most extreme evangelicals would support this view. Therefore, leave the article as it is, unless you can improve it. Achar Sva (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)