Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[SeekingAllTruth]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.




1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Given the literary genera of the text (Greco roman biography) and the fact that the gosspels are fool of embarrassing details* it seems probable that point 1 is true

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Given that most of the political, historical, demographic and geographical details** in the gospels are accurate … it seems probable that the authors had access to good sources, otherwise they would have not known those details.

---

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death, Peter denied Jesus, The empty tomb was discovered by woman, he was buried in the tomb of a Jewish Sanhedrin, Jesus had limited knowledge, etc. all these details represented obstacles for the early Christians, (things would have been easier without those embarrassing details)

** There really was a Pilate, there really was a Caiphas, the ratio of common names vs uncommon names are consistent, there really was a Jewish Sanhedrin that had some power and influence over the romans, they villages, towns cities etc. really excisted…………onlyh someone who was there or who had acces to reliable source could have known all these.

You're a Christian. Of course you would think they were historically reliable. I've studied the history behind them and I know that we don't know who wrote them--they were anonymous, they were written up to a century after the fact, there were no eyewitnesses who wrote the gospels, the gospels are not mentioned in any secular literature by notable historians of the age, neither is Jesus or the apostles mentione anywhere in any of the secular historical record. How could I possibly believe anonymous documents written by anonymous Greek authors could be reliable????

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yet despite his intro, which invites the reader to think he was an historian starting from scratch, his entire frame is Mark, with some Q, and a bit of Matthew, and only then some notes. (And even before we get to his genealogy ─ which I think he'd likely have obtained from someone else ─ we have to overcome the hurdle that in Luke, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father anyway.)

What is Q? Is it a theoretical text that we haven't found? I only understand what Elohist, Yahwist and Priestly texts are.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Are you comparing the writers of the Gospels with the nutters who think that 9/11 was a fake attack?

REALLY?????

How did you ignore the context and the majority of what I wrote and focus on three words at the end of the first paragraph?!

[Edit]Although, the relevance of the False Flag Theorists, is that they jump to conclusions based off poor critical thinking skills, which might be true with the early Christians (although they had to follow a different method as to what is true because they didnt have stuff like the internet, so I don't blame them). Also the "nutters" are conspiracy theorists, and Christianity has conspiracy theory elements, such as an evil spirit called Satan trying to lead everybody away from god.

The "nutters" might also be right about 9/11. And Christianity might be right about Satan.

 

[Tiberius]

I get your point

But now you have been shown how absurd your analogy was. Yet you insist that the TV series is not fiction.

Thus, "There's just no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, is there"?

No, you don't get the point.

I was pointing out that if we accept Leroy's claim that a few mistakes don't invalidate the entirety of a source (which he made in post 21), then we have to assume that any mistakes in Star Trek don't invalidate that as a source either.

Whether it's Star Trek or the Bible, if they're just old stories, we should dismiss them. If we're going to have an excuse as to why we should dismiss the Bible, then the same excuse will work just as well to show why we shouldn't dismiss Star Trek.

 

[Tiberius]

How did you ignore the context and the majority of what I wrote and focus on three words at the end of the first paragraph?!

Okay then, even forgetting what I said in the last post, the differences between accounts show that at least some of them are wrong. And with sources from so long ago, there's no way we can discount the possibility that ALL of them are wrong.

And add to that the fact that it seems like several of the sources come from the same source.

And add to that the fact that the events they claim are so extraordinary and yet offer no support at all.

To me, it seems that the most likely explanation is that they are nothing more than different tellings of the same fictional story.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Okay then, even forgetting what I said in the last post, the differences between accounts show that at least some of them are wrong. And with sources from so long ago, there's no way we can discount the possibility that ALL of them are wrong.

And add to that the fact that it seems like several of the sources come from the same source.

And add to that the fact that the events they claim are so extraordinary and yet offer no support at all.

To me, it seems that the most likely explanation is that they are nothing more than different tellings of the same fictional story.

I agree with you. I would just adjust your sentence to say "different tellings of the same historical fiction story"

So what I added in the last post before I realised you replied already

"Although, the relevance of the False Flag Theorists, is that they jump to conclusions based off poor critical thinking skills, which might be true with the early Christians (although they had to follow a different method as to what is true because they didnt have stuff like the internet, so I don't blame them). Also the "nutters" are conspiracy theorists, and Christianity has conspiracy theory elements, such as an evil spirit called Satan trying to lead everybody away from god.

The "nutters" might also be right about 9/11. And Christianity might be right about Satan."

 

[firedragon]

No, you don't get the point.

I was pointing out that if we accept Leroy's claim that a few mistakes don't invalidate the entirety of a source (which he made in post 21), then we have to assume that any mistakes in Star Trek don't invalidate that as a source either.

Whether it's Star Trek or the Bible, if they're just old stories, we should dismiss them. If we're going to have an excuse as to why we should dismiss the Bible, then the same excuse will work just as well to show why we shouldn't dismiss Star Trek.

I understand your point. I agree with your point.
It’s just a bad analogy.

anyway this is not the method even atheistic scholars of the New Testament make their cases. It’s a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot dismiss the whole book that claims to be history as completely ahistorical purely because there are historical errors. There could be some historical facts in it.

 

[firedragon]

Your inability to apply the knowledge to religions strongly indicates that "blind faith like yours makes the obvious obscure."

But no worries mate, I did not figure you were able to in the first place.

Of course you didn’t. That’s prejudice.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand your point. I agree with your point.
It’s just a bad analogy.

anyway this is not the method even atheistic scholars of the New Testament make their cases. It’s a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot dismiss the whole book that claims to be history as completely ahistorical purely because there are historical errors. There could be some historical facts in it.

But likewise, we can't assume that they ARE historical without some evidence to support that historicity.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying that we should dismiss a source - any source - just because there are a few minor inaccuracies. But when there are multiple large inaccuracies, then we should certainly be suspect, and we should demand evidence that explains why those inaccuracies are there.

 

[blü 2]

What is Q? Is it a theoretical text that we haven't found? I only understand what Elohist, Yahwist and Priestly texts are.

Yes, that's exactly right. The name comes from German Quelle 'source', and is hypothesized to be the source of the parts found jointly in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

We then have M for the parts of Matthew not found anywhere else, and L for the parts of Luke not found anywhere else, and these might have been written notes or documents, or unwritten, or indeed the author's opinion on the day.

(If one doesn't subscribe to the idea that Mark is the first gospel written, then one may have trouble with using M for Matthew. Its usage points to the wide modern acceptance of Markan priority.)

 

[PruePhillip]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.

.

Luke wrote The Acts after he wrote Gospel of Luke. He was with Paul on their fateful journey to
Rome mid 60's First Century.
Now Luke quoted from Matthew and Mark, so both these Gospels were known.
I suggest the synoptic Gospels were written within 20 years of Jesus, and many readers of these
Gospels were intimately associated with the various figures mentioned in the Gospels.

 

[firedragon]

But likewise, we can't assume that they ARE historical without some evidence to support that historicity.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying that we should dismiss a source - any source - just because there are a few minor inaccuracies. But when there are multiple large inaccuracies, then we should certainly be suspect, and we should demand evidence that explains why those inaccuracies are there.

Yep. Very good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke wrote The Acts after he wrote Gospel of Luke. He was with Paul on their fateful journey to
Rome mid 60's First Century.
Now Luke quoted from Matthew and Mark, so both these Gospels were known.
I suggest the synoptic Gospels were written within 20 years of Jesus, and many readers of these
Gospels were intimately associated with the various figures mentioned in the Gospels.

Both Luke and Acts are anonymous. Ascribing them to Luke did not begin until around the year 200 CE.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia.

 

[PruePhillip]

Both Luke and Acts are anonymous. Ascribing them to Luke did not begin until around the year 200 CE.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia.

You can't really say that. All the synoptics were anonymous. People just called them by
what they know, ie that Gospel Luke wrote.
Luke was with Paul on the journey to Rome - this was the beginning of the persecution
by Rome.
Luke, like all the Gospel writers (bar John) did not mention the greatest event in Jewish
history - the destruction of the temple. Jesus prophesied this destruction and it saved a
lot of lives, and he also prophesied the Jewish return to Jerusalem (so the Gospels were
not written after 1967.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't really say that. All the synoptics were anonymous. People just called them by
what they know, ie that Gospel Luke wrote.
Luke was with Paul on the journey to Rome - this was the beginning of the persecution
by Rome.
Luke, like all the Gospel writers (bar John) did not mention the greatest event in Jewish
history - the destruction of the temple. Jesus prophesied this destruction and it saved a
lot of lives, and he also prophesied the Jewish return to Jerusalem (so the Gospels were
not written after 1967.)

Sorry, but modern scholars disagree with you. There was a Luke that traveled with Paul. But there does not appear to be a valid reason to assume that he wrote Luke.

 

[leroy]

Paul himself tells you that he never met Jesus. This is not a disputed claim.

Yes, many of the writings attributed to Paul appear to be his. Though the same cannot be said about the writings of Peter.

Mark and Luke were not written by Mark and Luke, that is merely church tradition and neither were likely contemporaries,. In fact the author of Luke was definitely not one. Your "facts" appear to be nonexistent or close to it.

Ok Let's say that you are correct

1 the gospel of mark was not written by a man named mark, but by some other man with a different name.

2 Luke was written many different individuals.


So what? How would that affect the historicity of the gospels?

 

[leroy]

You're a Christian. Of course you would think they were historically reliable. I've studied the history behind them and I know that we don't know who wrote them--they were anonymous, they were written up to a century after the fact, there were no eyewitnesses who wrote the gospels, the gospels are not mentioned in any secular literature by notable historians of the age, neither is Jesus or the apostles mentione anywhere in any of the secular historical record. How could I possibly believe anonymous documents written by anonymous Greek authors could be reliable????

,

How could I possibly believe anonymous documents written by anonymous Greek authors could be reliable????

Because even if all the stuff is true.....points 1,2and3 in the OP are still true.

 

[leroy]

No, you don't get the point.

I was pointing out that if we accept Leroy's claim that a few mistakes don't invalidate the entirety of a source (which he made in post 21), then we have to assume that any mistakes in Star Trek don't invalidate that as a source either.

Whether it's Star Trek or the Bible, if they're just old stories, we should dismiss them. If we're going to have an excuse as to why we should dismiss the Bible, then the same excuse will work just as well to show why we shouldn't dismiss Star Trek.

We know that the authors of star trek intended to write science fiction

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, but modern scholars disagree with you. There was a Luke that traveled with Paul. But there does not appear to be a valid reason to assume that he wrote Luke.

Yes, there's a valid reason to believe the Luke who traveled to Rome wrote Acts, or at
least that marine section. It's clearly written by someone who was there - not something
200 years later. People who take an interest in marine tech read this passage as if it was
written by an eye witness reporter - and are unencumbered by 'modern scholars' and their
pretensions. I think in one place Luke uses that pronoun 'we' signifying he was the
author. And in Rome Acts ends quite suddenly, as if Luke died around the time Paul died.

 

[Tiberius]

We know that the authors of star trek intended to write science fiction

Of course they had to say that, the show never would have been made if they told the truth that it was all real events!

You're STILL missing the point.