How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[Jayhawker Soule]

For now, if I can cite the scholarship on this 'probability' point from Stanley E. Porter: "the criterion of embarrassment argues that material that cannot be readily explained as created by the early church has a high probability of authenticity...these include the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, where the event seems to place Jesus in a subordinate position to John" (Porter, Criteria for Authenticity 77-79).

Fair enough, but the criterion of embarrassment seems to apply only after Jesus becomes marketed as the living God. If the founders tale preceded the finalization of this theology, it might very well have found its way into gMk as a selling point and subsequently, from Meier's 1999 The Present State of the 'Third Quest' ...

However, the gospel sources betray an increasing uneasiness or embarrassment with the superior, sinless Jesus being baptized with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist.​

And Meier goes on to caution:

While embarrassment, as a distinct criterion, has its own force and value, it also has, like the other criteria, its own built-in limitations. First, relatively little material in the gospels falls under this criterion. Second, there is the hermeneutical problem that what we might judge embarrassing today might not seem embarrassing for the first Christian Jews.​

I am way out of my league here but I suspect that any claim beyond "not implausible" is to pretend to know more than is known.

 

[Thief]

Oh, ninja edit! I didn't see the above when I responded.

Well, I do regard the attestations by John of Jesus's "status" in the various gospel accounts to be propaganda (a 'valuable selling point' as you say).

The argument here is that Jesus being baptised by John, however, like the upteen other Jews streaming to undergo baptism at his hand and become part of his discipleship, doesn't fit the theological frame and that each gospel account is seemingly disconcerted by the whole affair - to such an extent that John doesn't even describe it but discusses only the theophany from the perspective of John (stressing that he's 'beneath' Jesus), whilst Matthew adds a saying not in Mark (or Q if you accept this hypothesis that it may have had a baptismal pericope with a different theophany) where John tells Jesus that he should actually be baptising him instead!

We need to separate the various proclamations from the actual incident of baptism. In and of itself, John baptizing Jesus says nothing about any status Jesus might have had (except that he submitted himself to John) and far more about what status John may actually have had (as in Josephus).

you are aware?......Jesus did not baptize

His disciples did

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just to add: there seems to be more than enough embarrassing content in the Infancy Gospels ...

 

[Left Coast]

Okay you speed-writing fanatic, there's no way I'm going to be able to respond to this mountain of stuff before I start work today.

So we'll start veeeery small, with just the first point.

Oh your a tough cookie LC and I love it

Sorry for my tardiness in getting back to you, I've literally been run off my feet. This will be quicker than normal for me - which is probably a blessing for you (no treatise this morning!) But I will get into a more extended discussion again when time permits on my end.

More extended? *faints*

My claim is that the fact of Jesus's baptism by John (not the 'spirit descending' or any other feature of Markan theology) is credible as a historical event and the balance of probability would thus dictate that it likely occurred in that time and place. In the absence of a time machine, I cannot physically corroborate any specific action attributed in any ancient text, even that of an ancient historian like Josephus.

Understood. And my position is that it likely did not occur, though as you said there's no way to know with certainty.

I think the first thing we need to address is the assumption on your end that the Christian material is basically worthless in assesing the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion.

To be clear, I specifically meant the Gospels, since that was the topic of the OP.

For the latter, the authentic Pauline epistles date from the 50s CE and were composed at a time when many of the people who had actually reportedly known Jesus were still alive and kicking.

The problem is that Paul tells us explicitly that he didn't consult any of those people, presuming they existed, to obtain any information about Jesus. Paul goes out of his way, in his authentic epistles, to say that his information about Jesus came exclusively from revelations, ie visions:

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11-12

And that gospel, of course, is precisely the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15).

So from a historical standpoint, our friend Paul, zealous as he may have been, is not a credible source of information when it comes to a historical earthly Jesus or anything that may have happened to him.

Paul refers to his meeting with James, the 'brother of the Lord' who is independently attested in Josephus

I would say this reference is spiritual, not biological. No more time this morning to get into the reasons. To be continued!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your method is the method of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Invalid. I can easily say its just bias. If you need explanation why just ask.

I think one of the problems with this book, is that it's close to impossible to see the difference between the baby and the bathwater....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

BTW, why did the voice had to announce that. The father and son are the same. Father, son and the Holy Spirit, it is all the same. Was Jesus without the spirit before the dove descended? God announced that in Galilee, people elsewhere did not hear it. Why did not he make it a general announcement for all humanity to hear. And the spirit immediate drove Jesus to the wilderness as if he was a cow or a goat? Why would a God need to go to the wilderness? Sages go there for contemplation. God too requires contemplation? If it really happened that way, kindly tell me why did it happen that way?

Uhu... and why would god require a baptism anyway?

 

[firedragon]

I think one of the problems with this book, is that it's close to impossible to see the difference between the baby and the bathwater....

Thats not what scholars say generally. But the people with an agenda to somehow throw the baby out, say this quite often without considering. It happens.

 

[lukethethird]

Gospels are anonymous. But that does not mean they are completely disregarded. There are some scholars who have done a lot of work to place it in the historical setting and derive what they can that could be deemed as probable occurrences in history.

What sort of scholar places a godman with supernatural powers in an historical setting?

 

[firedragon]

Uhu... and why would god require a baptism anyway?

If you read the Baptism episode, he not God or Son of God at all. He is adopted as the sun of God at the Baptism. Or rather, till that time there is nothing about him being the son of God. This differs from Mark to Matthew, and that's an indication of evolution of the Christology through time.

 

[firedragon]

What sort of scholar places a godman with supernatural powers in an historical setting?

Can you rephrase that question removing your "Goodman with supernatural powers" loading? Because that was not the meaning of my statement which you have twisted in a strange manner to load it. This is a loaded question fallacy.

 

[lukethethird]

Can you rephrase that question removing your "Goodman with supernatural powers" loading? Because that was not the meaning of my statement which you have twisted in a strange manner to load it. This is a loaded question fallacy.

What probable occurrences in history can be extracted from a story about a super hero with supernatural powers? This biblical story is about a savior and redeemer of mankind, it's theology.

 

[firedragon]

What probable occurrences in history can be extracted from a story about a super hero with supernatural powers? This biblical story is about a savior and redeemer of mankind, it's theology.

Well. That’s true. But scholars take it as literary sophistry and place it in the historical setting and take effort in deriving what could be history. They discard the theology and false portrayals based on what they know to be history.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?

The gospels seem to have a literary trope contest and I’m willing to bet less than a quarter of it is factual.

 

[Riders]

I don't believe its factual.

 

[Vouthon]

More extended? *faints*

I look forward to the rest when time permits.

 

[lukethethird]

Well. That’s true. But scholars take it as literary sophistry and place it in the historical setting and take effort in deriving what could be history. They discard the theology and false portrayals based on what they know to be history.

Why would so called scholars remove theology from a theological story to make it appear "realistic," why would they commit to this special pleading, we don't do this with any other stories involving heroes with supernatural powers so why this one"? Who are these scholars?

 

[firedragon]

Why would so called scholars remove theology from a theological story to make it appear "realistic," why would they commit to this special pleading, we don't do this with any other stories involving heroes with supernatural powers so why this one"? Who are these scholars?

Because they believe almost as a whole that there are historical facts in the Gospels as well. Thats why. So they are not like you. Who are these scholars? Almost every scholar in the field, atheist, agnostic, Muslim and Christian. This is what they do. Let me see if I can name a few that you may like because we may all be bias. John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison.

They don't consider these Gospels like a Marvel comic like you do. And I don't know who told you "these scholars remove theology from a theological story to make it appear "realistic,"". So basically you are saying they have a dishonest agenda. Awesome. See, this kind of argument can be said against anyone. But you are saying it without analyzing what they are saying. Thats the problem. Thats called "Bias".

Cheers.

 

[lukethethird]

Because they believe almost as a whole that there are historical facts in the Gospels as well. Thats why. So they are not like you. Who are these scholars? Almost every scholar in the field, atheist, agnostic, Muslim and Christian. This is what they do. Let me see if I can name a few that you may like because we may all be bias. John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison.

They don't consider these Gospels like a Marvel comic like you do. And I don't know who told you "these scholars remove theology from a theological story to make it appear "realistic,"".

You did, "They discard the theology and false portrayals based on what they know to be history." post #192

So basically you are saying they have a dishonest agenda. Awesome. See, this kind of argument can be said against anyone. But you are saying it without analyzing what they are saying. Thats the problem. Thats called "Bias".

Cheers.

So tell us, what scene from the gospels is historical and why? That every scholar believes is not an answer. Explain exactly how it is known that this given scene is historical.

 

[firedragon]

You did, "They discard the theology and false portrayals based on what they know to be history." post #192

You completely misquoted me.

"Why would so called scholars remove theology from a theological story to make it appear "realistic,"" was your statement.

So they are polls apart.

So tell us, what scene from the gospels is historical and why? That every scholar believes is not an answer. Explain exactly how it is known that this given scene is historical.

You asked about scholars, so I gave. Now you say it doesn't matter. Strange.

Anyway, you ask which scene is historical.

"Jesus is historical". Thats the only thing scholars are certain of as a consensus. Then some scholars like Bart Ehrman believes that the Baptism is historical because Josephus mentions the existence of a Baptist called John, and the gospels have multiple attestation of this event. They don't believe the dove matter, and the sky opening and God speaking etc etc. But they believe there was a man called Jesus and that he was baptized by John just like anyone else, which is a probable event. But the problem with multiple attestation is the synoptic problem which clashes within itself. Thus, the baptism is considered a probable event, not a definite event, but John the Baptist existed.

Also, there were many Messiah figures during this time and those who are mentioned by historians like Josephus were killed on the cross. So it is evident that Rome considered all of these Messiah claimants as criminals who committed sedition and their normal punishment is crucifixion. Thus, it is highly likely that Jesus who is mentioned as one who people called Messiah by Josephus and Tacitus was also captured and crucified by the Romans. Because this is the historical setting. What is highly unlikely is that Pilate even gave two hoots about what the Jewish public had to say and that he wanted to save Jesus. Thats highly improbable. Because Pilate was a man who was sent as a prefect to make sure the taxes keep rolling and was known to have murdered everyone who ever rose up even with a protest against Rome. So it just not probable that he wanted to save Jesus who was condemned for sedition. Pilate was a man who was brought back by Rome as a reprimand for being so brutal that even the Roman emperor felt he was too blood thirsty.

So yep. This is just a synopsis.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Uhu... and why would god require a baptism anyway?

True, Monster. But the human avataras of Lord Vishnu go through all the emotions and situations of humans, birth, education, sorrow, happiness. Only that they go back to their ''loka'', Vaikuntha, riding their mount, Garuda. Sage Vishwamitra taught Lord Parusharama (Lord Parashurama did not return, he is still around in India), Sage Vasishtha taught Lord Rama and Sage Sandipani taught Lord Krishna.