Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[SeekingAllTruth]

Again answer my question,… should we reject all sources that written by anonymous authors?

1 if yes then you have to drop nearly all ancient history

2 if no, then your objection is irrelevant. ….

I grant that the authors are anonymous, it´s just that I don’t see why is that a “problem”……….. Perhaps the author of Luke was a guy named “Joshua” So what?

So if you insist that the author being anonymous is a problem you have to justify and explain why is it a problem.

I've been polite enough to entertain your question. Why don't you try answering mine for once:

Should we accept proven forgeries as the inerrant word of God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that I already supported my claim

Making bare assertions, is not how "supporting a claim" works.

I already explained why the authors of the gospels probably had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life.

And plenty of people pointed out the many problems with your claims there.
Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

So deal with my arguments, and if you disagree explain why.

I already have.
In our sub-conversation, you have actually thrown out so much of the gospels that the only thing that really remains is the stuff that is actually verifiable.

And I agreed that one can indeed say of those parts that they are reliable history.

Only someone with access to reliable information could have known all the geographical, historical political and demographical details reported in the gospels.

By "reliable information", you really mean "someone who wasn't completely oblivious to the world they lived in".

After all, if you live in or around New York, do you really require access to "remarkably reliable" information to know about Barack Obama, Donald Trump, The Gambino Crime Family, John Gotti, Time Square, Manhattan, 9/11, ....

I live near Antwerp in Belgium and even I know about such things. Simply by being alive and not being oblivious to the world around me. This is common knowledge.

Hardly something that requires "special" explanation or which is to be branded as "remarkable" or what-not.

…. This by itself doesn’t prove that the gospels are true

Indeed it doesn't.

, but it proves that the authors where in a position to know what stuff about Jesus and his life. (weather if they told the truth or lied is a different issue)

There is no reason at all to think they had "reliable information" about Jesus and his life, because we have nothing to compare it to / test it against.

 

[leroy]

None of the authors ever met an historical Jesus or claimed to have done so.
The author of Luke, Luke 1:1-2, refers to many narratives of events "just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses" so that Luke's author will write "an orderly account". However, his gospel, like Matthew's, is essentially Mark re-edited and supplemented. If we assume he only meant Mark, Matthew, Q and some other notes, then Luke can be no more authentic than his sources.

Granted, so Luke knew Mark, Q and some notes…
Not to mention that from the book of acts we can conclude that the author of Luke was an excellent and talented historian


……..why isn’t that good enough?

[/E]The author of John (John 21:24) refers to his source, or some say, himself, as "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Since John was written in the 90s CE, sixty years or more after the traditional date of Jesus' death, it seems safe once again to rule out any eyewitness as his source ─ which also follows the template set by Mark, but at a further remove than Matthew or Luke, and with his own gnostic-flavored take and his own additional materials or traditions.
As above.

Well John the disciple died in the year 101…. He was alive when the gospel of John was written. I am not saying that he was necessarily the author but he would have been alive and serf as a primary source.

 

[leroy]

I've been polite enough to entertain your question. Why don't you try answering mine for once:

Should we accept proven forgeries as the inerrant word of God?

Should we accept proven forgeries as the inerrant word of God?

No........ see it´s very easy to answer questions directly and unabigously. ............why cant you do the same?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The problem is that I already supported my claim, I already explained why the authors of the gospels probably had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life.

So deal with my arguments, and if you disagree explain why.

Only someone with access to reliable information could have known all the geographical, historical political and demographical details reported in the gospels. …. This by itself doesn’t prove that the gospels are true, but it proves that the authors where in a position to know what stuff about Jesus and his life. (weather if they told the truth or lied is a different issue)

And what if the apostles themselves are fabricated just like Jesus? We haven't a single source outside the Bible that even mentions them.

 

[leroy]

M

By "reliable information", you really mean "someone who wasn't completely oblivious to the world they lived in".

After all, if you live in or around New York, do you really require access to "remarkably reliable" information to know about Barack Obama, Donald Trump, The Gambino Crime Family, John Gotti, Time Square, Manhattan, 9/11, ....

I live near Antwerp in Belgium and even I know about such things. Simply by being alive and not being oblivious to the world around me. This is common knowledge.

Yes it was common knowledge from someone who lived in Palestine within the year 30s … the average roman for example would have not known all those details.

That is my point, whoever wrote the gospels had access to information form the correct place and date.

There is no reason at all to think they had "reliable information" about Jesus and his life, because we have nothing to compare it to / test it against.

Yes there are plenty of details about the life of Jesus in each of the gospels that can be verified with other sources.

For example:

1 His death by crucifixion is confirmed by Paul and Tacitus

2 his burial was verified by Paul

3 That he had a brother names James was verified by Josephus

Only someone with access to reliable information about Jesus would have known those details…….if the authors had those details correct then presumably they had most of the other details that can’t be verified correct too. Agree?

 

[leroy]

And what if the apostles themselves are fabricated just like Jesus? We haven't a single source outside the Bible that even mentions them.

yes we do Peter for example

The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian (c. 155–c. 240) at the end of the 2nd century in his Prescription Against Heretics, noting that Peter endured a passion like his Lord's.[86] In his work Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion: "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross."[87]
Saint Peter - Wikipedia

But even more important “the bible” is not a single document, the bible is a bunch of independent documents each written by a different person in a different place and in a different date………. So the fact more than 1 books mentions the disciples count as “multiple sources”

 

[Left Coast]

By "reliable information", you really mean "someone who wasn't completely oblivious to the world they lived in".

After all, if you live in or around New York, do you really require access to "remarkably reliable" information to know about Barack Obama, Donald Trump, The Gambino Crime Family, John Gotti, Time Square, Manhattan, 9/11, ....

Any halfway decent fiction writer can place their story in a reasonably accurate historical and geographical context. Bookstores are filled with such examples.

That Christians are impressed that the Gospels aren't set on Krypton says more about their motivated reasoning than it does about the accuracy of the events the Gospels purport.

 

[leroy]

Who says it's a single person?
Ever played the telephone game? Is it a single person in the chain that alters the story? Or is it rather each individual in the chain that misses / adds / changes a few details, which then accumulate as you move up the chain to end up with a story vastly different from the one it started out with?

So which one is it? Did the authors of the gospels lied? Or where they victims of the telephone game?

How do you know that other authors from other historical documents where not victims of the telephone game?...... how do you think modern historians deal with this problem*?

It's like saying "Marvel is reliable history, as far as it concerns its references to verifiable events, places and people". Well duh.

False analogy,

A correct analogy would be: it’s like saying that the authors of Marvel had access to reliable information about New York because they had the names of the towns and buildings correct.

This is analogous to the authors of the gospels had access to reliable information about Jesus, weather if they intended to report history or to write a myth or just to simple lie is a different question.

Remember the OP? in order to establish true history you need both points

1 the author intended to write history

2 they author had access to reliable information

Marvel has point 2 but it lacks point 1. This is why Marvel shouldn’t be considered history

 

[leroy]

What is the purpose of the OP?
Because you claim they are reliable history, but you have just pretty much excluded a whole bunch of it by removing all the miraculous bits.

So I think you should reformulate it.
Into something like "the gospels are reliable history when it concerns those parts that can actually be verified and confirmed".

Which pretty much is simply stating the obvious.

Again the purpose of OP is to show that the gospels are reporting true history, because they were written by people who intended to write history and had access to reliable information.

Miracles are extraordinary events and beyond the scope of history, but the claim “Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as Miracles by some people” is not extraordinary and open to historical inquiry.

There are some historical facts that strongly suggest that stuff that was interpreted as miracles did happen

1 Paul was a witness of his own miracle, he saw something that he interpreted as risen Jesus,

2 Paul claimed that Peter John and James saw the risen Jesus and we know that Paul knew these 3 individuals, and therefore had access to their testimony.

3 It has explanatory power, if the disciples didn’t saw stuff that they interpreted as miracles, then it´s hard to understand why did the early Christian movement flourished, or why where the apostles willing to die for their belief in the resurrection

4 Multiple independent testimonies. We know that at least Paul John and the other 3 gosples are independent from each other and they all claim “miracles”

Those 4 points don’t prove that miracles actually took place, but they show that the apostles (and people around) saw something that they interpreted as miracles.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've been polite enough to entertain your question. Why don't you try answering mine for once:

Should we accept proven forgeries as the inerrant word of God?

There is no evidence the gospels are 'proven forgeries.' Bad terminology. Believers believe the gospels are the Word of God, or reflect God's intent in the Word. Historians do not consider them forgeries. The evidence demonstrates that the gospels were written after ~50 AD and reflect an evolved redacted compiled text. The authors did believe what they wrote, but nonetheless the gospels are narrative of belief set in history, and not entirely historically factual.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wait a minute, why don’t we deal with the topic that we were discussing a few days ago, rather than changing the topic?

1 You said that the gospel of Luke was not written by Luke, and perhaps written by many authors

2 I answered “So what”? that doesn’t invalidate any of my 2 points in the OP

Do you have anything to say about this?.........Do you admit that this particular objection (in red) is not a good objection against the OP?

After we finish with this specific point we can move to a different topic.

The fact that the gospels were compiled, edited and redacted after ~50 AD negates the claim that they are 'historically reliable documents.' There are no known 'good sources' dating before ~50 AD.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There is no evidence the gospels are 'proven forgeries.' Bad terminology. Believers believe the gospels are the Word of God, or reflect God's intent in the Word. Historians do not consider them forgeries. The evidence demonstrates that the gospels were written after ~50 AD and reflect an evolved redacted compiled text. The authors did believe what they wrote, but nonetheless the gospels are narrative of belief set in history, and not entirely historically factual.

Hi, shunydragon. I don't know how else to put it. Here's what Bart Ehrman, a well-respected Biblical scholar (one of the best) says in his book, Forged:

New Testament books identified as forgeries by Ehrman

• First Epistle of Peter
• Second Epistle of Peter
• Acts of the Apostles
• Epistle of James
• Epistle of Jude
• Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
• First Epistle to Timothy
• Second Epistle to Timothy
• Epistle to Titus
• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Colossians

False attributions
In addition to the eleven books of the New Testament Ehrman identifies as forgeries, he discusses eight originally anonymous New Testament texts that had names of apostles ascribed to them later and are falsely attributed. These are not forgeries since the texts are anonymous but have had false authors ascribed to them by others.

• Gospel of Matthew
• Gospel of Mark
• Gospel of Luke
• Gospel of John
• First Epistle of John
• Second Epistle of John
• Third Epistle of John
• Epistle to the Hebrews

He's not alone. Almost all Biblical scholars outside the mainstream Christian community agree with him. This is nearly the entire New Testament, shundy.

How can anybody in their right mind call forgeries, pseudepigrapha if you wish the inerrant word of God??????

More, how can anybody in their right mind read what they know are forgeries, again pseudepigrapha if you wish and believe they are reading the inerrant word of God??????

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

yes we do Peter for example

But even more important “the bible” is not a single document, the bible is a bunch of independent documents each written by a different person in a different place and in a different date………. So the fact more than 1 books mentions the disciples count as “multiple sources”

Tertullian is a churchman--from the 3rd century no less. He is not a reputable source. I repeat:

No secular historian in the first 4 centuries mentions a single apostle. If you know of one please let us know. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. I'm tired of always being right.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

No........ see it´s very easy to answer questions directly and unabigously. ............why cant you do the same?

Let me have two more and then I'll answer any question you put to me clearly and unambiguously:

Does the New Testament contain forgeries? If yes, should we accept them as the inerrant word of God?

 

[37818]

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

Inductively or deductively? Conclusions drawn inductively are not always true, being they are generalizations.

Personally I am persuaded those documents are reliable on the grounds God gave them the words to write and to use their own words. Was not without the truth of 1 & 2.

 

[blü 2]

You have not even stated any facts blu.

The opinions of historians are based on facts, and I've told you the facts and opinions I base my own opinion on.

If history is largely opinion, then there is no history.S No. You pick and choose what you want to accept.

Yes, in accordance with historical method ─ and I have no ax to grind, while you do.

Check what?

Check Weeden's report that Mark's account of the trial of Jesus is based on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem ─ in other words see for yourself.

So... Jerusalem was still standing when Matthew wrote his account... which means he wrote it before 70 CE.

No, as I pointed out to you, Matthew contains a "prophecy" of the destruction of the Temple so it was written after 70 CE.

And it uses Mark as its narrative frame, much of it word for word or close enough, so it was written after Mark.

And Mark was not written before 75 CE.

The next question is, which parts, if any, of Mark are glimpses of a historical Jesus.

 

[37818]

The gospels don't even agree what Jesus' final words were.

Omission of some details does not mean disageemen as to what was said was not said.

 

[blü 2]

Granted, so Luke knew Mark, Q and some notes…
Not to mention that from the book of acts we can conclude that the author of Luke was an excellent and talented historian

No, he was a reporter of stories, which he felt free to edit, subtract from, and add to. As did the other gospel authors.

Well John the disciple died in the year 101….

We have no idea who wrote the gospel of John. Both tradition and scholarship put it last of the four, which would date it to the 80s or 90s.

Nor is it certain when, where or how the disciple John died. All we have are traditions, confused by the existence of various authors who called themselves "John" or were identified as John.

 

[leroy]

The fact that the gospels were compiled, edited and redacted after ~50 AD negates the claim that they are 'historically reliable documents.' There are no known 'good sources' dating before ~50 AD.

Interesting, but nothing to to with the comment that you are quoting.