Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes and this proves that the author of spider Man has access to reliable sources Otherwise he wouldn't know the names of the cities the existence of mayor's

Or maybe, just maybe, the author simply lived in the USA and wasn't completely oblivious to what went on around him.

Who lives his life in a country while not knowing about the names of major cities, landmarks, high profile politicians, etc?

You'ld have to be living in a cave and never come out in the populated world to not know such things.

It's common knowledge.

Or are you going to argue that the author would have had to go do research to know that Manhattan is in New York or that Obama was a president?


Even homeless people with no TV or anything have such knowledge.
Why do you think that is so surprising?

Spiderman fails at point 1 (considering the 3 points in the OP)

Your point 1 is just an assumption, carefully chosen to make your silly argument work, like you always do.
Point 3 doesn't even follow, even if we grant the silly premises.

 

[shunyadragon]

That the information of the documents is likely to be true.

Like most ancient texts they do contain some historical facts and historical figures like the Iliad and the Odyssey, and are set in history, but are not necessarily accurate history. Yes, it is accepted that Jesus is consider to have lived at time the Bible describes and he was convicted by Rome for treason and crucified, because some people and events can be documented by different sources and archaeology, but like the Iliad and the Odyssey the miraculous and supernatural events are not verified as historical. The closest thing to historical records at the time of Jesus were Roman Military and administrative records. .

 

[blü 2]

It makes sense that retellings of stories would differ.

I think it's clear enough that the author of Mark wrote the first gospel, and the authors of Matthew and of Luke each took this as the basis of their own versions, omitting as each thought best, adding to it from Q and from their own respective notes, and generally altering the import to taste. So we end up with theme and personal variations, not discrete biographies. John does a similar thing but at a greater remove, and has to deal first with the failure of the promised Kingdom to arrive and second with the growth of Christianity from a Jewish sect to its own religion, whence the flashes of antisemitism.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible writers differ on details while recalling an actual event.

Taking 30 CE as the traditional date of Jesus' death, Paul wrote more than 20 years later, Mark was written 45 or so years later, Matthew and Luke say 55 years later, and John say 65 years later. Neither Paul nor any of the gospel writers ever met an historical Jesus. All they had were various traditions, some of which may have been written, and various sayings attributed to Jesus.

But they weren't writing as historians; they were each writing the story of Jesus they thought ought to be the correct one, the one they wanted to hear, fictional embellishments included.

As you say, there are a few fixed points common to the five stories. All agree that Jesus was a Jew who was a religious teacher with followers, put the Eucharist in place, was crucified by the Romans, was buried and was seen afterwards. In Mark, Jesus is expressly not of the line of David. Inthe other gospels, and in Paul, Jesus is indeed of the line of David (absurdly so in Matthew and Luke with their equally absurd genealogies).

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think it's clear enough that the author of Mark wrote the first gospel, and the authors of Matthew and of Luke each took this as the basis of their own versions, omitting as each thought best, adding to it from Q and from their own respective notes, and generally altering the import to taste. So we end up with theme and personal variations, not discrete biographies. John does a similar thing but at a greater remove, and has to deal first with the failure of the promised Kingdom to arrive and second with the growth of Christianity from a Jewish sect to its own religion, whence the flashes of antisemitism.

As far as we know, yes the author of Mark did write the first gospel. The author of Luke openly admits that he is compiling his version based off other people's stories, which is why his book tends to be more focused on details and would be taken mostly or in part from Mark. The author of John travels on a very theological path compared to the other gospels.

Taking 30 CE as the traditional date of Jesus' death, Paul wrote more than 20 years later, Mark was written 45 or so years later, Matthew and Luke say 55 years later, and John say 65 years later. Neither Paul nor any of the gospel writers ever met an historical Jesus. All they had were various traditions, some of which may have been written, and various sayings attributed to Jesus.

I wouldn't make such a conclusion because of alternate possibilities. At best I would say that they could possibly also have met the historical Jesus, they would just be recording the events much later. They could have been dealing with congregation matters and then, realizing that they were in old age, have wanted to record their experiences or the experiences of others for the sake of future generations.

But they weren't writing as historians; they were each writing the story of Jesus they thought ought to be the correct one, the one they wanted to hear, fictional embellishments included.

I agree with you on all of the writers except Luke. To me it does seem like he was trying to create a historical account, an actual biography. But that is just based off the detail of his gospel and the fact that he admits that he was gathering accounts and compiling them. To me it seems like he was collecting info to gather the truth of the situation.

As you say, there are a few fixed points common to the five stories. All agree that Jesus was a Jew who was a religious teacher with followers, put the Eucharist in place, was crucified by the Romans, was buried and was seen afterwards. In Mark, Jesus is expressly not of the line of David. Inthe other gospels, and in Paul, Jesus is indeed of the line of David (absurdly so in Matthew and Luke with their equally absurd genealogies).

Those genealogies are very difficult for Christians to harmonize, since they are so all over the place. At best one of the writers made an error.

 

[Father Heathen]

Would you cite which other religious text that has points 1 and 2?

Take your pick. Anyone could make the same claims.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are the gospels meant to be exactly the same?

If they're supposed to be historical accounts.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry but your logic is a huge non sequitur and your claims are refuted by some of the clear errors if not outright falsehoods in the gospels.

only if you are a literalist

 

[Subduction Zone]

only if you are a literalist

No, to do so you have to go past that. But nice try.

 

[Kenny]

No, to do so you have to go past that. But nice try.

YUP! But denial has been your forte.

 

[Subduction Zone]

YUP! But denial has been your forte.

No, projection is merely yours.

 

[leroy]

Yes they did. Can you prove they didn't?

Honestly I am disappointed; from your previous comment I thought you where the kind of person that would be interested in having in a serious conversation .

 

[leroy]

In the story, Lennier has the opportunity to save Sheridan, but since Lennier and Sheridan both love the same woman, Lennier leaves him to die. Up until this point, Lennier had been shown as a good and righteous man, so this detail would not have been included if Babylon 5 was just a story. Thus, Babylon 5 is true.

goes against this purpose is likely to be an actual historical fact,

A better example:

Imagine that you write a book explaining and showing why your fried“Joe” would be the best president in USA…. The purpose of the book is to get as many votes as possible.

YOU have 2 options

1 Simply tell the truth and see what happens

2 Lie and idealize Joe, and make him look good.

If your book has embarrassing details , like mistakes that JOE made in the past, his bad relationship with his wife, his embarrassing past as a member of the KKK etc. then it would be likely that you picked option 1….because all those embarasing details go against his purpose, voters might dislike the fact that he was a member of the KKK ...................... Any disagreement?

 

[epronovost]

Yes and this proves that the author of spider Man has access to reliable sources. Otherwise he wouldn't know the names of the cities the existence of mayor's .

Since those things are common knowledge it could be said that the author comes from the general area or have access to a person who lived in the area. That doesn't mean that this person was a witness of any special event in the area.

No because the author didn't intended to write real history(despite having good sources)

Spiderman fails at point 1 (considering the 3 points in the OP)

Since you do not know the authors of the Gospels, you cannot know if the author intended to write a real story.

Since many passages in the Gospels tells of Jesus being completely alone and having conversation with the Devil for example, some passages in the Gospels cannot be historical. Nobody could have heard that conversation and nowhere is there mention of Jesus having a scribe recording all his deeds and words. There is thus a good amount of artistic liberties in the very text of the Gospels. That's characteristic of a legend not of a historical text.

 

[epronovost]

I seem to recall that people were getting executed somehow every couple pages, in Tactius.. so that becomes a bit of a generality in that context

Extremely so. There as also been debates over if Tacitus was simply quoting a well known and common belief of Christians at the time or if he was quoting Imperial source on execution of rebels in Judea under Pontius Pilate. Pilate was very ''prolific" when it came to repression during his tenure according to Josephus and probably didn't keep paperwork for all of them.

 

[leroy]

I don't think there's any evidence of that. I think they intended to pass on a story about the person they'd never met but venerated. None of them ever met Jesus, and each had his own version of who Jesus was.

My point is the authors reported what they thought was true….they didn’t intentionally lied……….any mistakes in the gospels where honest mistakes and not deliberate lies……..agree?

However, I agree it's a recognized rule in reading history that embarrassing stories are more likely to be true.

agree

 

[leroy]

So are the Greek myths true because they tell embarrassing stories about their gods? Would that make their gods more true than your one because the Bible doesn't tell embarrassing tales about god?

No, those embarrassing stories would suggest that the author of those myths intended to report what they thought was true.

The same applies to the bible, embarrassing details show that the authors reported what they thought really happened.

Agree?

 

[leroy]

First, the authors of the gospels are unknown. There is no evidence that they were the people attributed.
Second, historical precision was not a thing back then. Accounts of events varied, even when the authors had no agenda.
.

My point is that the authors reported what they thought was true, they were not lying….. agree?

The authors' sources were unknown, and almost certainly not first person

Irrelevant, the fact that the gospels are accurate in so many historical, political, geographical and demographic details, show that they had access to reliable sources… it doesn’t matter if we don’t know exactly what the source where.

If you find a document describing the life of a man who lived in Mexico City in the 70s and the document has the names an locations of the surrounding cities and towns correct, the name of the president correct, the name and description of some buildings correct, etc…. you can conclude that the author of such work had access to good sources, ether he was a witness, or he knew the witnesses or he had acces to some accurate document etc.

Authors aside, the gospels were cherry picked, and they've been copied, recopied, and translated hundreds of times -- by people with religious agendas. The telephone game has nothing on religious doctrine.

The same is true with any other historical document,. If this where an issue then we would have to drop all ancient history.

 

[leroy]

Marvel comics does the same. It also mentions real geographic places and gets the political structure of the US and the rest of the world correct and blablabla.

This is expected.

Which proves that the authors of marvel have access to good sources, otherwise they wouldn’t know the names and locations of all those cities, buildings etc.

 

[leroy]

Since those things are common knowledge it could be said that the author comes from the general area or have access to a person who lived in the area. That doesn't mean that this person was a witness of any special event in the area.

But it proves that he had accept to good sources, and no it is not common knowledge…do you know who was the governor in Jerusalem 40 years ago? Do you know the name of the grant Rabbi from 40 years ago? Do you know the names and locations of the cities and villages surrounding Jerusalem? Do you know the name of the buildings that existed 40 years ago?

Only someone with good sources , (or a witness) would know all those details.

Since you do not know the authors of the Gospels, you cannot know if the author intended to write a real story.

Yes given the literally style and the criteria of embarrassment we can conclude that probably the authors intended to report real historical events. … most ancient documents are anonymous so by that logic we should reject all ancient history

 

[epronovost]

But it proves that he had accept to good sources, and no it is not common knowledge…do you know who was the governor in Jerusalem 40 years ago? Do you know the name of the grant Rabbi from 40 years ago? Do you know the names and locations of the cities and villages surrounding Jerusalem? Do you know the name of the buildings that existed 40 years ago?

Only someone with good sources , (or a witness) would know all those details.

Since those things don't change fast, you only need access to someone a bit old and you don't need a person who known all of them. If you know who Pontius Pilate is because you are a literate Roman and yo know of Jerusalem since it's a rather large city in the area, you only need to find a Jew who knows who were the jewish leaders of the city and a jewish person who lived in villages nearby. That's not really hard to find in Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem and the waves of slaves comming in from Judea after the revolt. You don't even need a first account. Most people could name the names of a few kings back and of some important figures a few decades after their deaths.

Yes given the literally style and the criteria of embarrassment we can conclude that probably the authors intended to report real historical events. … most ancient documents are anonymous so by that logic we should reject all ancient history

There are no embarrasing moment in the Gospel. The entire Gospel narrative hinges on the execution of Jesus to wash away the sins of man, he isn't executed so much as he sacrifices himself for the good of all and then there is of course the fact that accordin to the gGospels he resurrect, defeating death itself, and leaving with a promise to return and bring heaven on Earth.

While many ancient documents are anonymous, those that are often easily datable, confirmed by archeology and authored document of the time. Note that we have no original copies of the Gospels. The earliest one we have are dated from the late 4th century and were certainly derived from earlier sources meaning they have been copied and edited multiple times before and that this process included outright censorship. Furthermore, even the best historical documents are taken with a grain of salt as all of them contain a certain amount of errors and bias. The Gospels do not represent historical documents of the events of early 1st century Judea or credible historical information on the life of Jesus


Finally, credible historical documents seldom contain tall tales of magic and miracles. That's why the Illyad of Homer isn't a historical document despite the fact Troy, Mycenae and Sparta were real cities of the era; that there was indeed a prince of Troy named Alexander; that Troy and Mycenae were indeed major cities at war and that the former lost to the later. No, you will not see any historian say this is a great source for the actual historical events of the area even though that was understood to be a historical events, with a little bit of sauce here and there. by the Greeks of the time.