Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[nPeace]

History is about Maya. Jesus is God.

Just an idea? Where did you get that idea?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Nobody even knows who the authors even are.

It could be medieval authors for all we know.

At any rate, the Bible is not a historical account.

Its a mythological account.

 

[syo]

Just an idea? Where did you get that idea?

Maya is the world of mortals. History is about events of mortals. Us.

Jesus is not Maya.

 

[blü 2]

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?

On all the evidence, it is highly likely that Mark was written before Matthew.

And from amongst all the evidence, Mark was written later than 70 CE since it purports to prophecy the sack of Jerusalem Mark 13:2 (and Matthew improves on this by specifying the destruction of the Temple Matthew 24:2).

And Mark was written 75 CE or later since the author of Mark gets his "trial of Jesus" scene from Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in Wars VI.5.3, which is not available to the public before 75 CE.

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.).

A thousand years after the event? I can't say that's a convincing start.

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

Eusebius is both sides of 300 CE, so about 240 years down the track. He had no real idea about who or when with the writing of the gospels.

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.

That's simply incorrect ─ see Matthew 24:2 as mentioned above.,

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?

If I wanted to know more about Nebuchadnezzar I'd go to a reputable history book probably having started with Wikipedia. I'd accept what's written above to the extent that it agrees.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm going to address these in a more general, rather than specific sense...

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

That would be unusual, by the standards of the day. Instances of what we would consider 'factual' reporting are exceedingly rare and not especially factual. Consider basically every report of a battle from ancient times...or even from the middle ages, in many cases.
It's what makes 'historians' like Thucydides so exceptional. I'm unsure how you can assume the authors intended to report what actually happened.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

I'm unsure how you define 'reliable sources'. I'd be interested in your definition of that.

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.

I disagree with 3 based on the points I made around (1) and (2). Perhaps the authors were uniformly trying to be accurate in a modern sense, and perhaps they all had access to reliable sources.
But I'm unsure why you're convinced those are true points. Ancient 'histories' were generally not compiled as a modern history would be. This is not about the authors 'lying', for example.

 

[leroy]

Your argument doesn't follow. Knowing of the existence of a city and two town as well as two major local leader isn't specific knowledge, especially when one takes into account historical mistakes on the census and other details like making Jesus hail from a town that would not exist for two centuries. it doesn't show intimate knowledge of the area.

Well imagine that you found a document with information the Olympic Games from 1976.

Imagine that the document mentions 100 athletes who supposedly won a golden medal.

From those 100 alleged winners we know that 50 are true because we can veryfy them with other sources.

2 are probably mistakes.because they contradict other sources.

And the remaining 48 "we don't know" because we can't verify them with other sources.

Given than the author of that document had the other 50 athletes it would be reasonable to conclude that at least most of the remaining 48 are also true. That's the point with the gospels if the authors where correct in most of the verifiable details, .......why not giving them the benefit of the doubt?

A lack of historical errors. The name of the author and the nature of their sources. A precise chronology of the events of Jesus life instead of one interpolated.

I am curious, would you apply that level of skepticism with all ancient sources?......jesuphus, tacitus, Plutarch, etc all had errors and anonymous sources.......would you reject their work for that reason?

Will you read the material that I send to you even though they will be the first results of a google search?

[/QUOTE]
Sure I'll read it

 

[leroy]

A knowledge of history never prevented writers and storytellers from making things up. Next time you're in the library note how large the fiction section is. Those authors knew history and geography, too.

Ok but you agree that the authors had access to reliable sources right?

 

[McBell]

Well imagine that you found a document with information the Olympic Games from 1976.

Imagine that the document mentions 100 athletes who supposedly won a golden medal.

From those 100 alleged winners we know that 50 are true because we can veryfy them with other sources.

2 are probably mistakes.because they contradict other sources.

And the remaining 48 "we don't know" because we can't verify them with other sources.

Given than the author of that document had the other 50 athletes it would be reasonable to conclude that at least most of the remaining 48 are also true. That's the point with the gospels if the authors where correct in most of the verifiable details, .......why not giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Do you assert the opposite as being just as likely and also worth the "benefit of the doubt"?

Imagine you have a document that makes 100 claims about the world we live in.
Let us suppose further that that we have shown 50 of them to be factually incorrect.
lets also suppose that 2 were correct.

The remaining 48 are still being investigated.

Given the author of the document had 50 that were incorrect, it would be reasonable to conclude that at least most of the remaining 48 are also factually incorrect, right?

 

[leroy]

Does not answer the qquestion, because there is no evidence of sources before 50AD

So what?..... should we reject all sources that where written 20+ years after the event?......or should we make an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

 

[leroy]

Do you assert the opposite as being just as likely and also worth the "benefit of the doubt"?

Imagine you have a document that makes 100 claims about the world we live in.
Let us suppose further that that we have shown 50 of them to be factually incorrect.
lets also suppose that 2 were correct.

The remaining 48 are still being investigated.

Given the author of the document had 50 that were incorrect, it would be reasonable to conclude that at least most of the remaining 48 are also factually incorrect, right?

Granted if the author got 48 mistakes then we shouldn't trust the document.

 

[leroy]

I'm just going with the same assumption you made - that the authors of the text (be it the Gospels or Star Trek) intended to report on actual events.

If you want me to justify my assumption, then you must also justify yours.

My "assumption" was justified in the OP.

We can assume that the authors honestly tried to report historical events (and not lies ) because:

1 the literally style of the gospels

2 the presence of embarrassing details......for more information go to the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well imagine that you found a document with information the Olympic Games from 1976.

Imagine that the document mentions 100 athletes who supposedly won a golden medal.

From those 100 alleged winners we know that 50 are true because we can veryfy them with other sources.

2 are probably mistakes.because they contradict other sources.

And the remaining 48 "we don't know" because we can't verify them with other sources.


Given than the author of that document had the other 50 athletes it would be reasonable to conclude that at least most of the remaining 48 are also true.

Not if the other 48 are claimed to have been super-human magical gods and demi-gods and miracle workers.
Not if the 48 are all marvel super hero's.

That's the point with the gospels if the authors where correct in most of the verifiable details, .......why not giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Because the "facts" they got right are mundane and common knowledge, while their unsupported bits are claims of extra-ordinary magical miraculous things.

I am curious, would you apply that level of skepticism with all ancient sources?......jesuphus, tacitus, Plutarch, etc all had errors and anonymous sources.......would you reject their work for that reason?

Their standard for evidence is much lower, as no extra-ordinary magical claims are made about them.
Instead, they were just common humans.

 

[leroy]

And what if I was making up a story - or simply taking a pre-existing story - and wanted to convince people that it was true? Then I'd include a few details to make the main character look a biut silly sometimes, and then point to those bits and say, "See? If the story was made up, why would I include this bit that makes the character seem silly?"

And you'd say, "Hmmmm, that's a good point, I guess it MUST be true!"]

The same can be said about all historical documents.

Sure if you apply a position of extreme skepticism you can say that all was a made up lie.....but if we apply that degree of expetisism then we should drop all histoy.

How do you know that Alexander the grate was born in Macedonia? Maybe Plutarch (the historian) lied ... Given that he was an honest written he knew that he could have invented that lie without people notice it

The fact a story contains embarrassing details does not make it more likely t

Well scholars would disagree with you......and honestly I would rather trust scholars than trusting you..

 

[leroy]

Not if the other 48 are claimed to have been super-human magical gods and demi-gods and miracle workers.
Not if the 48 are all marvel super hero's.



Because the "facts" they got right are mundane and common knowledge, while their unsupported bits are claims of extra-ordinary magical miraculous things.





Their standard for evidence is much lower, as no extra-ordinary magical claims are made about them.
Instead, they were just common humans.

Ohhhh so your problem is not the historical evidence.


Your problem is that the gospels make "miracle claims" that contradict your naturalist world view right?


Well let's say that it is a historical fact that Jesus Did stuff that some people from his time.. interpreted as "miracles" .....agree? If not why not?

 

[leroy]

I think they were telling a story that was important to them, and that they were each confident that their view was the correct way for the story to go, so they felt free to amend Mark (in particular) where Mark disagreed with the personal vision of each writer. They were not writing as historians, rather to have the story accord with their particular view.

Thus for example the author of Matthew felt free to invent an imaginary "taxation census". Why? Because he felt it would be proper for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. Why? Because Micah 5:2 says, "But from you, O Bethlehem [...] shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel". So he felt justified in devising a tale by which Jesus is born there "to fulfill prophecy" ─ though of course Jesus was never a ruler of Israel and the idea is purely the author's aspirational view.

In exactly the same way the author of Matthew invented an imaginary "Massacre of the Innocents". Why? So as to get Jesus transported into Egypt. Why? Because Hosea 11.1 says "When Israel was a child, I loved him, / and out of Egypt I called my son."

There are many many examples of this in the NT.

There are many many examples of this in the NT

Granted, but the good news is that modern scholars are very smart and can identify those details.

Sure we should be skeptical about the fulfilled prophecies .....this is not a big deal all historical documents have things that are "too good to be true" and scholars can identify them and justifiably apply an extra layer of skepticism towards those particular claims.

(I have this scene in my mind where Mrs Mark comes home with the shopping, sees Mark at the table with his reed and papyrus, and says, "How's the Jesus bio going, dear?" Mark replies, "I haven't written a word. No one has a clue about what he actually did." Mrs Mark gives a big smile and says, "He has to do all the things a messiah is supposed to do in the Tanakh. Just whip up a list of anything that looks like a messianic prophecy, put the episodes in some kind of order, and move Jesus through each of them in turn. Fill in the spaces from your list of sayings." And he gives her a kiss, seizes his pen and his Tanakh, and sets to work.)

Imagine yourself in your desk trying to invent a story about someone who liven in Jerusalem 50 years ago.

Could you provide accurate information on who the mayor was, ?who the Rabbi was? The names of towns and villages around, the political atmosphere, the economy, etc.? (I assume no)

Only someone who:
1 Lived in Jerusalem 50 years ago.

2 knew someone who lived in Jerusalem 50 years ago.

Or

3 someone with access to good sources (books, documents, etc)

Would have all those details correct.

So the authors of the gospels where ether 1,2 or 3 agree?

 

[leroy]

Would you say this was true of other legendary characters as well -- Zeus, Paul Bunyan, Osiris, Prester John, Rama, St Patrick?
They are not known to be accurate. They differ. Even Biblical scholars -- whom you refuse to hear -- agree on this.
The Four Gospels - Sources and History
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
He did provide sources, You chose not to google them. I doubt if you read my pre-googled links, either.

A subject can't be treated in depth in a chat room. If you really want answers to your questions you're going to have to read, however distasteful that may be to you.

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.

From your source.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies,[22][23] the same genre as Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.[22] Some biblical scholars view Luke’s Gospel as ancient history rather than ancient biography.[23]

Ok so I agree with that statement......do you?

 

[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????

Ok so should we drop all anonymous historical documents?

In ancient history anonymous documents is nearly all we have......even ancient historians like Tacitus, Josephus Plutarch etc.

So ether:
1 being anonymous is not a big deal.

2 or we drop nearly all ancient history.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok and what's the point with star trek?

 

[leroy]

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.

What is the point of quoting my comment, if you are going to say something completely different and unrelated to that comment?

...
1 You said that Luke was probably written by more than 1author

2 I said "so what" points 1 and 2 from the OP could be true regardless if Luke was written by Luke, or someone else or by multiple authors.

So if you disagree with the stuff in red letters please let me know and explain why you disagree.

 

[leroy]

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

Granted, nobody is saying that they are "error free"