[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

My Method for Researching the Four Gospels

At the risk of repeating myself, here is the way that I approach the gospels when I am in research mode:

1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

The Events before the Baptism

Using this approach, the opening chapters of both Matthew and Luke are all subject to question, for the elder manuscripts of John and Mark start their narratives with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, and neither author concerned himself with any events preceding that event.

In perusing the posts on the AltVws thread, I noted that there are some of you who have already questioned the Virgin Birth, and have pointed out that Paul never mentioned it in his epistles. I welcome your collective inputs. This is important because it is pretty clear that Paul’s epistles predate the gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke.

Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?

Hello Timotheist, welcome to the Alt View forum. I think you have made a good start on your quest for the truth of this issue. It's commendable that in approaching this subject you have laid out your method. In that regard you are ahead of those that merely expound their opinions. This way, we can examine your presuppositions which is what I have done.

1)When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.

At first glance that seems like a worthwhile principle. But, what premises are behind it? Do you consider Matthew and Luke to be largely derivative of Mark? When John and Mark agree, how do you know that the agreement is on an historical rather than some other basis? In other words, must the "truth" be historical or factual and if so, in what sense? If it seems obvious to you that agreement must be factual then consider the possible experience of the writers who were members of congregations and believed they were somehow communing with a post-resurrection Jesus. The stories they wrote might have been influenced by that experience as much if not more than they were by anything that happened to the historical Jesus during his life time. And that is just one possible alternative to your method. There are as many other possibilities as one's imagination can conjure in addition to the one you have come up with.

2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)

Why do you do this? It seems totally arbitrarily unless you share your reasoning? I didn't know that John gave us a "date". I didn't think that even the year of the crucifixion was known with precision let alone the month and the day. Please share this information.

3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.

This seems like a sound principle. However, why wouldn't it be true of all the material in all of the gospels? Unless the alleged facts can be corroborated by independent sources isn't it all suspect as far as being historically accurate?

4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

This principle seems to assume that Old Testament propositions are true. What's the basis for that conclusion? Aren't many of the statements in the OT even harder to verify historically then those in the NT? And why couldn't the NT writers merely construct their Gospel narrative in order to make it seem that OT prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus? In the case of the birth narratives of Jesus, Matthew and Luke have constructed two seemly conflicting stories to explain how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem. The simplest explanation for these stories is that they were trying to show how Jesus fulfilled the prophesies that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Why not just accept that that is the case?

I don't raise these points to discourage you in your quest for the truth. Rather, these are questions which you have raised in my own mind that I would like to pursue further for my own sake.