Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

At this point, it doesn't surprise me at all that you'd dream up a set of criteria for "reliability" for the Bible that doesn't even consider its track record of being confirmed true or false.

You aren't interested in truth; you're only interested in trying to win internet arguments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

sources that provided reliable infromation , sources that are mostly true

But you can only know that if you can check the sources themselves, by finding some other corroborating source. Otherwise, you are merely back to taking it on faith -- which is fine, so long as you know that is what you are doing.

And if you do take it on faith, then you can stop worrying yourself about all this, and get on with enjoying your beliefs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

REALLY?????

He made no such comparison. He was comparing what people wrote about the events around Jesus with what was written about the events around 9/11. And there's nothing wrong with making such a comparison.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You claim to be interested in truth, but you actively avoid it, particularly when it promises to contradict your particular theology. You're interested only in arguing, and not very skilled at it.

But we see this a lot, here, don't we? Lots of claims by people that all they want is "truth," when in fact, they have already decided on what that "truth" is, and now they just want to justify it, and maybe get others to accept it as "truth," as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Did you really just ask that question, in reference to "historicity?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Paul's writings... for the most part, are accepted as undeniably his.
When we put them alongside Peter's - another confirmed writer - writings, we have a witness, who lived at the same time. Then we have Mark and Luke - contemporaries... more witnesses.

Luke 1:1-4 suggests that:

- the author was not an eyewitness of what he was describing.
- his intent is to set the record straight.

And since we can see in his content that he used Mark as a source, we can know that he felt that the record wasn't correct enough with only the account in Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Please, you were trying to use the excuse that they were written as history to support your poor argument. There are clear errors in Luke, any student of history knows this. Christians deny it. Have you read the Nativity? Forget the mythical aspects, I personally find a ten year pregnancy difficult to believe.

 

[McBell]

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

That I successfully predicted your inability is not prejudice.
But you go ahead with whatever it takes to make you feel better about it.

 

[firedragon]

That I successfully predicted your inability is not prejudice.
But you go ahead with whatever it takes to make you feel better about it.

Sometimes people say things they wish to say to themselves.

Thanks for your ad hominem.

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

Because it was written after Mark, which it uses as its narrative frame, and Mark wasn't written before 75 CE.

!!!? Was that supposed to be a joke? Well you certainly succeeded in making me laugh.
Do you consider that to be "one solid un-opinionated reason"?
It's actually an opinionated view... and mushy - not solid.

I do understand that's the best you can do though.
All you really can do is make bland statements and empty claims - no evidence, no nothing.

How does that stand up against evidence from the first century writings, second century (and later) writings?

You're certainly right about "prophecy".

Yes. I know.

Thanks for the link. It does you no favors, I fear.

The link does support me on this point. Whereas, it has nothing at all for you. Your basket is empty. O' dear.
You see, while we have people living close to the events, and being associated with those events, stating as fact, what you don't know, all you have is... 000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Imagine that we have a group of persons witnessing an event, and recording it - primary source, and we have a group living among those who witnessed the events, saying that John did witness the events, and John did record the events - a secondary source, and a primary source to the later events....
We have something more reliable than someone arriving 2000 years after, and saying... "This is what happened..."

That's like Pharaoh III writing on his building projects. After his death, those who knew him, reported that he did write these things. Centuries later, some modern experts say, "Nuh-uh. Never happened. Someone else wrote it."
Wait. That doesn't happen though.
Nebuchadnezzar I or Nebuchadrezzar I (/ˌnɛbjʊkədˈnɛzər/), r. c. 1125–1104 BC, was the fourth king of the Second Dynasty of Isin and Fourth Dynasty of Babylon. He ruled for 22 years according to the Babylonian King List C,[i 2] and was the most prominent monarch of this dynasty. He is best known for his victory over Elam and the recovery of the cultic idol of Marduk.

You accept this don't you? Why is that?
Also. Do you accept Paul's writings... at least the 7 books out of the 13, most scholars believe are authentic? Do you accept that these books were written as early as (they say 31 CE) 34 CE?

I did indeed. What evidence do we have that male Jews in 1st century Judea / Galilee prepared their genealogies down the female instead of the male line?

I did some research on that a while back. Unfortunately I did not save the links. However, you can do some of your own research, on how the tracing from the maternal side differed from the paternal.
Yes. It was done during the time of the apostles. Matrilineality in Judaism - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

Luke 1:1-4 suggests that:

- the author was not an eyewitness of what he was describing.
- his intent is to set the record straight.

And since we can see in his content that he used Mark as a source, we can know that he felt that the record wasn't correct enough with only the account in Mark.

Everyone knows that Luke was a later disciple who did not witness the actual events he wrote. He said that himself - Honesty, as the OP mentioned.

We can see?
No, that is far from the truth. Is that what they tell you... and do you believe it?

Some 60 percent of Luke’s Gospel is unique. He relates at least six specific miracles not recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John. He includes many illustrations that are not mentioned in the other Gospel accounts.

Luke provides extra details about the physical condition of some of those suffering from an illness.
His vocabulary is larger than that of the other three Gospel writers combined.

The Muratorian Fragment attributes to him authorship of the book of Luke.. Yes, they claim it's a fourth century document, dismissing any evidence it's a second century document, but that's nothing surprising.

Luke was accepted as the author by other second-century writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus.

The apostle Paul himself wrote that Luke accompanied him in his missionary service, so it's not difficult to accept that Luke was well informed. He lived during the time of the witnesses.

Those are the things we can see.

 

[blü 2]

!!!? Was that supposed to be a joke? Well you certainly succeeded in making me laugh.

My pleasure!

Do you consider that to be "one solid un-opinionated reason"?

Yes.

What part of it do you dispute?

All you really can do is make bland statements and empty claims - no evidence, no nothing.

Now now! I just gave you a well-founded reason why Mark is written before Matthew. And your best reply is affected mockery, which, old friend, is wholly harmless to what I said.

How does that stand up against evidence from the first century writings, second century (and later) writings?

Better than any other I know, and certainly more coherently than the idea that Matthew was written first.

You never told me why you thought Matthew was written by 43 CE, by the way. Do you have a reason, or is it just a notion you like?

Do you accept Paul's writings... at least the 7 books out of the 13, most scholars believe are authentic? Do you accept that these books were written as early as (they say 31 CE) 34 CE?

I'm aware of the arguments that Paul's letters were actually written by a follower of Marcion in the latter 2nd century, but I think the character of Paul in his writings is so singular that I go with the view he was historical. However, I equally go with scholarly orthodoxy again in holding that Paul's earliest letter was written about 51 CE and his last by 58 CE.

Why do you think Paul's letters were written from 31 CE?

 

[Colt]

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.

The gospels were a form of journalism in the age they were written and no journalism is error free.

 

[paarsurrey]

The gospels were a form of journalism in the age they were written and no journalism is error free.

The Gospels are neither authored by G-d, nor by Jesus hence these are unreliable. The sinful authors of the Gospels were used to exaggerations and hence are not historical. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospels are neither authored by G-d, nor by Jesus hence these are unreliable. The sinful authors of the Gospels were used to exaggerations and hence are not historical. Right, please?

Regards

For once correct since no documents were written by God. All of them have "sinful" authors.

Right please?

 

[Colt]

The Gospels are neither authored by G-d, nor by Jesus hence these are unreliable. The sinful authors of the Gospels were used to exaggerations and hence are not historical. Right, please?

Regards

The Gospels aren't perfect but there is enough there to immortalize the teachings of Jesus. I didn't say they were exaggerated, but they are like news stories that rely on eyewitness accounts, memories of things Jesus said etc.

 

[syo]

What leads you to conclude that... you don't mind my asking?

History is about Maya. Jesus is God.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Gospels aren't perfect but there is enough there to immortalize the teachings of Jesus. I didn't say they were exaggerated, but they are like news stories that rely on eyewitness accounts, memories of things Jesus said etc.

None of the sinful scribes who wrote the four gospels was an eyewitness of the event of Jesus' crucifixion, mostly discussed in the gospels, and on it are based the tenets of the Pauline-Church, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Colt]

None of the sinful scribes who wrote the four gospels was an eyewitness of the event of Jesus' crucifixion, mostly discussed in the gospels, and on it are based the tenets of the Pauline-Church, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

No wrong. John was an apostles. Mark was an understudy of Peter. One of Matthews disciples wrote for Matthew. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. I don't know why you feel the need to call them sinful.

 

[nPeace]

My pleasure!
Yes.

What part of it do you dispute?

You sound like you are serious.
I asked you for "one solid un-opinionated reason"
Do you know what that means? It means, standing on foundation and not an opinion or view.
Here is your answer to "Give me one solid un-opinionated reason why Matthew was not written before 43 CE."
Because it was written after Mark, which it uses as its narrative frame, and Mark wasn't written before 75 CE.
Do you not see what is wrong with everything in that answer?
1. Matthew was written after Mark.
2. Mark wasn't written before 75.

Question. Is 1 and 2 a fact, or opinion?
Another question. What solid foundation is that answer built on?

Now now! I just gave you a well-founded reason why Mark is written before Matthew. And your best reply is affected mockery, which, old friend, is wholly harmless to what I said.

Well founded? I'm still looking for the foundation. Where is it?

Better than any other I know, and certainly more coherently than the idea that Matthew was written first.

I'm listening.

You never told me why you thought Matthew was written by 43 CE, by the way. Do you have a reason, or is it just a notion you like?

Sorry about that.
There is a great deal of evidence.
External evidence : Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.).

Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s Gospel in the third year of the reign of Caligula - A.D. 41.

Internal evidence : The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.
Source

More evidence can be found on this site. Please read.

I'm aware of the arguments that Paul's letters were actually written by a follower of Marcion in the latter 2nd century, but I think the character of Paul in his writings is so singular that I go with the view he was historical. However, I equally go with scholarly orthodoxy again in holding that Paul's earliest letter was written about 51 CE and his last by 58 CE.

Why do you think Paul's letters were written from 31 CE?

Not my view sorry. I thought it was their view, and thought it odd.
I made a mistake though. I apparently didn't look at the information with care. The 31 on the page caught my eye, and I was distracted.
The dates are in line with my view... give or take a hair.

You did not answer my question though. Do you accept this history - Nebuchadnezzar I or Nebuchadrezzar I (/ˌnɛbjʊkədˈnɛzər/), r. c. 1125–1104 BC, was the fourth king of the Second Dynasty of Isin and Fourth Dynasty of Babylon. He ruled for 22 years according to the Babylonian King List C,[i 2] and was the most prominent monarch of this dynasty. He is best known for his victory over Elam and the recovery of the cultic idol of Marduk. and why?