Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[QuestioningMind]

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.

You can't identify a single one of the authors, thus any claims you make about them are pure assumption based on what you'd like to believe.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

Depends on the nature of the embarrassment, but when it comes to the bible, I do believe that they thought that what they wrote down was true.

 

[leroy]

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.]

Well that is my point, they (the authors of the gospels) would have had access to reliable sources, they would have had access to documents or people who knew about stuff in Jerusalem and surroundings from the time where Jesus lived.

They were in a position to know what happened back then, they where in a position to know who Jesus was and what he did.

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.

Its not an opoinion, Paul explicitly explained that the crucifixion was a “problem” for the purpose of spreading the gospel.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

Corinthians 1:22

So if dead by crucifixion was “a problem” why didn’t the authors invented something else?.... my theory: Because their intend was to report what actually happened. Do you have a better theory in mind?

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

.
But brilliant academics can get all the available copies and reconstruct the original documents, …. We know how the original documents where, with only a small portion of minor and irrelevant controversial points.

And no, there was no censorship, that sounds like another crazy conspiracy theory…….who censored the documents?........

 

[leroy]

You can't identify a single one of the authors, thus any claims you make about them are pure assumption based on what you'd like to believe.

I saw a pattern………… for some reason most skeptics from this forum make a big deal because we don’t know who the authors where.

My answer is : who cares? You don’t. need to know the name of the authors in order to grants point 1, 2 and 3 form the OP.

Honestly what would change if we discovered that the name of the author was a guy named “Joe” instead of Mark?

 

[syo]

The gospels in nt are all mythology. Nothing historical in them.

 

[leroy]

Depends on the nature of the embarrassment, but when it comes to the bible, I do believe that they thought that what they wrote down was true.

ok so you grant point 1 in the OP


do you also grant points 2 and 3?

 

[ChristineM]

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Your evidence please.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Your evidence please

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

See above


By evidence I don't mean your opinion, i mean indipendentely verified evidence.

FYI, Following your logic of some demographic and geographical details being accurate then Harry Potter must also be gospel. Yes i have visited Alnwick Castle, it exists in precisely the geographic setting depicted in the book

 

[epronovost]

Well that is my point, they (the authors of the gospels) would have had access to reliable sources, they would have had access to documents or people who knew about stuff in Jerusalem and surroundings from the time where Jesus lived.

As I mentionned before that's not even necessary. People who have lived a generation or two after Jesus' death would also know those things quite easily.

Its not an opoinion, Paul explicitly explained that the crucifixion was a “problem” for the purpose of spreading the gospel.

The Gospels didn't exist at the time of Paul. At the time, the story of Jesus and his teachings would have been transmitted through oral tradition and stories.The earliest one's would have been written almost a decade after his death and well after he did most of his preachings.

But brilliant academics can get all the available copies and reconstruct the original documents, …. We know how the original documents where, with only a small portion of minor and irrelevant controversial points.

Not they can't. They have interpolated the date of writtings of the Gospels, the earliest one being Marc which would have been written in 70 of our era, one would have been abandonned or heavily transformed, the so called Q Gospel while the others would have been written between 85 AD and 120 AD.

And no, there was no censorship, that sounds like another crazy conspiracy theory…….who censored the documents?........

You are not without knowing that the Christian Chruch censored the writtings of the gnostics and the Aryan as well as a series of gospels like that of Mary or Philippe for example.

 

[leroy]

Your evidence please.



Your evidence please



See above


By evidence I don't mean your opinion, i mean indipendentely verified evidence.

FYI, Following your logic of some demographic and geographical details being accurate then Harry Potter must also be gospel. Yes i have visited Alnwick Castle, it exists in precisely the geographic setting depicted in the book

The evidence is in the OP....................


if you spot a specific point that requires more justification I will be happy to provide more information.

FYI, Following your logic of some demographic and geographical details being accurate then Harry Potter must also be gospel.

(Haven’t seen/read harry potter so I don’t really know)…..however The accuracy of the geographical details show that the author of harry potter had access to good sources so point 2 of the OP is accomplished.

However Harry potter fails at point 1, “the author didn’t intended to write accurate history”

You need both points 1 and 2 in order to conclude that a source is reliable,

 

[ChristineM]

The evidence is in the OP....................


if you spot a specific point that requires more justification I will be happy to provide more information.



(Haven’t seen/read harry potter so I don’t really know)…..however The accuracy of the geographical details show that the author of harry potter had access to good sources so point 2 of the OP is accomplished.

However Harry potter fails at point 1, “the author didn’t intended to write accurate history”

You need both points 1 and 2 in order to conclude that a source is reliable,

Like I said, evidence please,not opinion

So show your evidence that biblical authors intended accuracy

 

[leroy]

As I mentionned before that's not even necessary. People who have lived a generation or two after Jesus' death would also know those things quite easily.

Yes that is my point, someone who lived in the correct place/time and knows the correct people would know who Jesus was and what he did.

We know that the authors lived in the correct place/time and knew the correct people because they had all these historical and geographical details correct….. any disagreement?

The Gospels didn't exist at the time of Paul. At the time, the story of Jesus and his teachings would have been transmitted through oral tradition and stories.The earliest one's would have been written almost a decade after his death and well after he did most of his preachings.

Irrelevant, the point that I made with Paul is that death by crucifixion was an embarrassing detail………….if the authors of the gospels intended to lie and invent stuff, they would have invented a more heroic death.

Not they can't. They have interpolated the date of writtings of the Gospels, the earliest one being Marc which would have been written in 70 of our era, one would have been abandonned or heavily transformed, the so called Q Gospel while the others would have been written between 85 AD and 120 AD

.
the evidence shows that the current gosples where similar to the original

all historical documents have th esame *problem* but historians know how to deal with them

[/E]You are not without knowing that the Christian Chruch censored the writtings of the gnostics and the Aryan as well as a series of gospels like that of Mary or Philippe for example.

As far as I am concerned, nobody has ever censored those documents (Mary or Philippe) etc , the documents have always been widely available for anyone who what to study them.

But you claimed that the gospels where censored, what is th evidnece for that? who censored them? When?

The early church didn’t had any power, (it was not even an institution) by the time when the church became powerful, (500s AC) the gospels where already widely available and widely spread, making censorship impossible.

 

[leroy]

Like I said, evidence please,not opinion

So show your evidence that biblical authors intended accuracy

As my OP explains.

1 the fact that the documents are written as Greco-Roman biographies

2 the fact that the gospels have embarrassing details

They both show that the authors were honestly trying to represent what actually happened. ……….

 

[ChristineM]

As my OP explains.

1 the fact that the documents are written as Greco-Roman biographies

2 the fact that the gospels have embarrassing details

They both show that the authors were honestly trying to represent what actually happened. ……….

The OP does not provide evidence.

No, they show the authors knew how to present a good story using fact as a keystone and peppering it with their story plot

 

[firedragon]

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?

Please provide an instance of an embarrassment, and could you give the reason you think it is embarrassing, not better than what actually happened?

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I reviewed your questions, and had a question on in making these assertions concerning the 'authors.' You have not proposed who you consider the authors were.

The above is to a degree true no matter who the authors were, but unsubstantiated if you consider the authorship before 50 AD or witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ..

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My answer is : who cares? You don’t. need to know the name of the authors in order to grants point 1, 2 and 3 form the OP.

On the contrary. It the supposed events being reported are long after the events taking place, as is suspected with many Bible books, then the ability for them to have reliable sources and report them reliably is much diminished.

But I also don't believe intention was to be reliable. So the whole chain is moot.

 

[paarsurrey]

As my OP explains.

1 the fact that the documents are written as Greco-Roman biographies

2 the fact that the gospels have embarrassing details

They both show that the authors were honestly trying to represent what actually happened. ……….

Did Jesus belong to Greco-Roman peoples, please?
Jesus was Jew all his life, not even for a day he was, I understand, part of the Pauline Christianity, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

I reviewed your questions, and had a question on in making these assertions concerning the 'authors.' You have not proposed who you consider the authors were.

The above is to a degree true no matter who the authors were, but unsubstantiated if you consider the authorship before 50 AD or witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ..

I am not claiming that they where witnesses, all I am saying is that they had access to good sources, we know this because they had many historical and geographical details correct,

 

[epronovost]

Yes that is my point, someone who lived in the correct place/time and knows the correct people would know who Jesus was and what he did.

We know that the authors lived in the correct place/time and knew the correct people because they had all these historical and geographical details correct….. any disagreement?

Incorrect. Knowing that New-York exists and that Chester A Arthur was a POTUS of the US that came from there doesn't make me a contemporary of Chester A Arthur nor an American nor a New-Yorker. I am not a historical source for the life of Chester A Arthur.

A Roman centurion who was in garnison 5 years before Jesus death could know all the coroborated informations in the Gospels and never have met Jesus or heard of him.

Irrelevant, the point that I made with Paul is that death by crucifixion was an embarrassing detail………….if the authors of the gospels intended to lie and invent stuff, they would have invented a more heroic death.

They did. They made Jesus shameful death into an act of sacrifice to save the soul of humanity and resurrect from the dead. If you can't deny something, give it a positive spin.

As far as I am concerned, nobody has ever censored those documents (Mary or Philippe) etc , the documents have always been widely available for anyone who what to study them.

They were not. Only fragments exist today. please, quote me a medieval theologian who recites or uses passages from the Gospel of Mary.

 

[leroy]

Did Jesus belong to Greco-Roman peoples, please?
Jesus was Jew all his life, not even for a day he was, I understand, part of the Pauline Christianity, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Greco roman biography is just the name of the literary style of the documents.