Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[leroy]

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.

Granted

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

No. The problem is evidence and the fact that claims are being made about phenomenon that aren't part of commonly observable reality, phenomenon that are completely out of the ordinary. So much so that they are "unbelievable", unless some type of evidence of similar phenomenon is actually available.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.


If I tell you I saw movie last night, you'll probably believe me. Watching movies is something common that people do every day.

Now, if I would tell you that some guy in ancient Rome was watching a movie on a TV 2000 years ago, then you will be requiring some extra-ordinary evidence.

If I would tell you that something magical happened last night while watching the movies, like Jessica Alba crawling out of the TV screen, slapping me upside the head and then crawl back into the TV to finish the movie, then you won't be so ready to believe that either.


Surely you will acknowledge that all claims are not on the same footing right out the gates.
Surely you understand that some claims can not just be accepted on such grounds like "by association" or by knowing of similar phenomenon.

If some Roman Senator at the time of Julius Caesar speaks of seeing Julius in the senate wearing a white toga, I'ld probably just believe it. It could still be wrong. It could have been a red toga. But the nature of the claim isn't such as that I would feel the need to plant a flag there.

But if it would say that Julius then proceeded to turn water into wine, cure the blind with but a touch of the hand, walked on water and grew wings and used them to fly to the moon and back......... Then all kinds of alarm bells are going to go off.

The only thing plausible about that story, is seeing Julius Ceasar in the senate. All the rest would require additional evidence. And until such evidence is forthcoming, the only reasonable thing to do is to reject those claims as literal truth.

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?

Then the stuff they wrote down aren't accurate representations of what actually occurred.

 

[leroy]

No. The problem is evidence and the fact that claims are being made about phenomenon that aren't part of commonly observable reality, phenomenon that are completely out of the ordinary. So much so that they are "unbelievable", unless some type of evidence of similar phenomenon is actually available.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.


If I tell you I saw movie last night, you'll probably believe me. Watching movies is something common that people do every day.

Now, if I would tell you that some guy in ancient Rome was watching a movie on a TV 2000 years ago, then you will be requiring some extra-ordinary evidence.

If I would tell you that something magical happened last night while watching the movies, like Jessica Alba crawling out of the TV screen, slapping me upside the head and then crawl back into the TV to finish the movie, then you won't be so ready to believe that either.


Surely you will acknowledge that all claims are not on the same footing right out the gates.
Surely you understand that some claims can not just be accepted on such grounds like "by association" or by knowing of similar phenomenon.

If some Roman Senator at the time of Julius Caesar speaks of seeing Julius in the senate wearing a white toga, I'ld probably just believe it. It could still be wrong. It could have been a red toga. But the nature of the claim isn't such as that I would feel the need to plant a flag there.

But if it would say that Julius then proceeded to turn water into wine, cure the blind with but a touch of the hand, walked on water and grew wings and used them to fly to the moon and back......... Then all kinds of alarm bells are going to go off.

The only thing plausible about that story, is seeing Julius Ceasar in the senate. All the rest would require additional evidence. And until such evidence is forthcoming, the only reasonable thing to do is to reject those claims as literal truth.



Then the stuff they wrote down aren't accurate representations of what actually occurred.

Ok but the claim:
Jesus did stuff that some people interpreted as miracles....is not "extraordinary"


So in conclusion
1 the gospels (excluding miracles) are reliable (but not perfect) historical documents.

2 it's an "almost certain" historical fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people.

3 wether if these where miracles or not is beyond the scope of what historians can say

Any disagreement?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok but the claim:
Jesus did stuff that some people interpreted as miracles....is not "extraordinary"

Depends on the specific stuff, off course. But sure, let's move forward with the assumption that no miracles occurred and that the accounts of miracles are just misinterpretations or pure fabrications.
Because ps: people lying, being mistaken or stories being embellished with magic sauce on top, isn't extra-ordinary either - especially not for that age, where superstition reigned supreme throughout society.

So in conclusion
1 the gospels (excluding miracles) are reliable (but not perfect) historical documents.

Far from perfect. Excluding miracles, after all, scraps quite big portions of it.
You're basically left with a common political rebel who gathered some following with his anti-establishment ideas and speeches.

2 it's an "almost certain" historical fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people.

No, it's not. There's also the option of these things being completely invented or embellished.

3 wether if these where miracles or not is beyond the scope of what historians can say

Sure. And such miracles are so unlikely that we dismiss them at face value, as we do in every other instance.

For example, if a guy is caught red handed with the gun in his hand and powder on his palm with which the 3 people laying in front of him were killed ... If his defense is that a supernatural entity appeared, killed the 3 people and then placed the gun in his hand and laced his palm with the gunpowder... nobody is going to take that defense seriously. It will be instantly dismissed and not even be considered a valid potential candidate of what actually happened.

Any disagreement?

As you can see, some disagreement yes.

But what's more important here... You just devaluated the entire story into a common tale of mere humans forming a rebel cult. Hardly extra-ordinary.

We can apply the exact same reasoning and argument to the quran, or any other religion with a central "historical" figure, and come up with the same conclusion.

So not really sure what you hope to accomplish with this line of reasoning.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

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.

Noooo, you're smoke-screening i,e, creating a red herring. The gospels were titled Matthew Mark Luke and John by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century, trying to give the impression they were written by eyewitnesses. But the Greeks who wrote them were NOT eyewitnesses. They were anonymous. We have no idea where they got their information from since they were written 50 to 100 years after the fact. That's why they cannot be trusted to give us reliable info on jesus' life. We have to assume they made it all up.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Arbitrary exceptions would not be accepted as historical. The evidence demonstrates there are no known records of the gospels until after ~50 AD. Historians base there conclusions on the objective evidence available. Like many ancient religions there is a lack of provenance and documented authorship, 'good sources,' in the early history. In Tanakh there is no evidence of the Hebrew Genesis nor the Pentateuch before ~700 BCE. Even there is a lack of evidence for the Hebrew language before ~1,000 BCE. A similar problem exists for Buddhism.

 

[leroy]

No, it's not. There's also the option of these things being completely invented or embellished.

Ok and who is the author of this lie ?.....did the author of Luke is invented the lie or did he receive the lie from someone else?


...this is what probably happened
There was a Jesus who did some stuff that the disciples and people around interpreted as miracles......the founded a new religion and the authors of the gospels assumed that the miracle claims where true......... Do you have a better hypothesis on what probably happened?

We can apply the exact same reasoning and argument to the quran, or any other religion with a central "historical" figure, and come up with the same conclusion.

Sure you can try it. If the Quran has points 1 and 2 (from the OP) I would accept it as a reliable historical document

The same applies to any other historical document.



I agree miracles should be dismissed unless additional and conclusive evidence is provided (but irrelevant for the purpose of the OP)

 

[leroy]

P

Noooo, you're smoke-screening i,e, creating a red herring. The gospels were titled Matthew Mark Luke and John by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century, trying to give the impression they were written by eyewitnesses. But the Greeks who wrote them were NOT eyewitnesses. They were anonymous. We have no idea where they got their information from since they were written 50 to 100 years after the fact. That's why they cannot be trusted to give us reliable info on jesus' life. We have to assume they made it all up.

Ok so by your logic we should reject all historical sources that where written 50-100 after the fact?

Should we reject all sources written by anonymous?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

P

Ok so by your logic we should reject all historical sources that where written 50-100 after the fact?

Should we reject all sources written by anonymous?

Now you're asking a loaded question. The proper way to frame your question is "Should we reject all reliable historical sources..." A source has to be proven it is reliable i.e. written by the person who is claiming to be the author. In the gospels we don't have the authors' names. We only have 4 apostles' names that were chosen at random by Irenaeus circa 200 CE as the supposed authors well over 150 years after they died. That is not reliable. That is not even historical by any reputable Biblical scholar' definition. I'll repeat again: we don't know who wrote the gospels but whoever wrote them we know they were not eyewitnesses to the events they claim to be eyewitnesses to. That makes them fraudulent, by any reputable scholars' definition.

 

[blü 2]

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)

The gospel authors were educated people, part of the small fraction of the population who could not only read and write Greek but do so with an assured style (though the author of Mark is, I've read, the roughest as writing goes). They apparently didn't know of Paul's letters, but if they did, those are very short on an earthly bio of Jesus. They don't name many minor officials of the kind you suggest, and if they do, we, like their general audience, only exceptionally have the chance to check their accuracy. They give conflicting accounts of the date of Jesus' birth, and we have to work out for ourselves the date of his death.

There may have been an historical Jesus, but an historical Jesus is not essential to explain the writing of Mark, hence the others. Mark is a story, and the question is, what if any parts of it are records of an historical Jesus?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

“Intended” and “did” are two different things. They claim to knowledge of things that happened when they were not there. That is all I need to know about their validity.

 

[leroy]

Now you're asking a loaded question. The proper way to frame your question is "Should we reject all reliable historical sources..." A source has to be proven it is reliable i.e. written by the person who is claiming to be the author. In the gospels we don't have the authors' names. We only have 4 apostles' names that were chosen at random by Irenaeus circa 200 CE as the supposed authors well over 150 years after they died. That is not reliable. That is not even historical by any reputable Biblical scholar' definition. I'll repeat again: we don't know who wrote the gospels but whoever wrote them we know they were not eyewitnesses to the events they claim to be eyewitnesses to. That makes them fraudulent, by any reputable scholars' definition.

So should we reject all historical documents that where not written by witness?

 

[Valjean]

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

Everyone has access to all kinds of data, of varying degrees of reliability, but in regards the life of Jesus, their information was hearsay, at best, which they went on to embellish and shoehorn into their preferred religious narrative.

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.

Styles vary from literate to illiterate, and have more to do with the background of the author than the veracity of the propaganda.

What embarrassing details? The crucifixion was a Roman embarrassment, hot a Hebrew one. Whoever the gospel writers were, they tailored their stories to fit the Tanakh, the prophesies, and the prevailing customs, attitudes and folklore. They wrote their narratives to fit the communities they were addressing.

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?

Not just miracles. Lack of first person sources, unknown sources, religious agendas, embellishments and contradictions.

 

[Valjean]

P

Ok so by your logic we should reject all historical sources that where written 50-100 after the fact?

Should we reject all sources written by anonymous?

We should critically analyze sources: Was there an agenda or just a dispassionate report of a local event? Are they re-iterations of previous legends and folklore? Were their corroborating reports from unrelated sources? Was there corroborating archaeology, dendrochronology, palynology, radiometry, &al?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

So should we reject all historical documents that where not written by witness?

lol you asked me the same question. I'll ask it for you. "Should we reject all reliable historical documents that have been authenticated?" Answer: "No, we shouldn't as long as they have been authenticated as having been written by the author purporting to have written them." The gospels are not authentic, they haven't been authenticated and they definitely are not reliable. Therefore we should reject the gospels because they were written by people who claim to be eyewitnesses who in reality were NOT eyewitnesses.

 

[leroy]

The gospel authors were educated people, part of the small fraction of the population who could not only read and write Greek but do so with an assured style (though the author of Mark is, I've read, the roughest as writing goes). They apparently didn't know of Paul's letters, but if they did, those are very short on an earthly bio of Jesus. They don't name many minor officials of the kind you suggest, and if they do, we, like their general audience, only exceptionally have the chance to check their accuracy. They give conflicting accounts of the date of Jesus' birth, and we have to work out for ourselves the date of his death.

There may have been an historical Jesus, but an historical Jesus is not essential to explain the writing of Mark, hence the others. Mark is a story, and the question is, what if any parts of it are records of an historical Jesus?

Ok but the authors where ether

1 witnesses.

2 knew the witnesses.

3 had access to reliable information

Agree?

 

[leroy]

lol you asked me the same question. I'll ask it for you. "Should we reject all reliable historical documents that have been authenticated?" Answer: "No, we shouldn't as long as they have been authenticated as having been written by the author purporting to have written them." The gospels are not authentic, they haven't been authenticated and they definitely are not reliable. Therefore we should reject the gospels because they were written by people who claim to be eyewitnesses who in reality were NOT eyewitnesses.

Will you ever answer my questions .?

You made a big deal because we don't know who the authors are......so should we reject all historical documents whose authors are anonymous?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but the authors where ether

1 witnesses.

2 knew the witnesses.

3 had access to reliable information

Agree?

No. They were almost certainly not witnesses. It is doubtful that they had access to witnesses, nor is there any reason to believe that they had access to reliable information.

Tell me, did you follow the election we just had?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Will you ever answer my questions .?

You made a big deal because we don't know who the authors are......so should we reject all historical documents whose authors are anonymous?

Try to ask proper questions if you want proper answers.

 

[leroy]

We should critically analyze sources: Was there an agenda or just a dispassionate report of a local event? Are they re-iterations of previous legends and folklore? Were their corroborating reports from unrelated sources? Was there corroborating archaeology, dendrochronology, palynology, radiometry, &al?

Yes critical analysis have been made by scholars.....sure the authors had an agenda (like in most historical documents)......but the gospel are good historical documents