Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[halbhh]

There is a problem with eyewitnesses, especially over such long periods of time. People very often see what they want to see. As a result eyewitnesses are not all that reliable. Even worse those that are most passionate often are the most likely to misinterpret the events. Look at all of the "witnesses" in our recent election. When tested the eyewitnesses very often badly misinterpreted what they saw. Most of the corrections of what they misinterpreted seemed to come from other Republicans. And when there claims were tested they always failed, take Georgia with its multiple recounts, one of them a hand recount of all paper ballots plus an audit of signatures of mail in ballots. No cheating found. And massive cheating would have shown up. Add on to the fact that when people remember things in the past they tend to change the memories a bit and the stories do not appear to be reliable at all.

Yes, that's right: memories change, for most people (not everyone is the same though, it turns out). One of the only ways to know what happened from a large groups of witnesses giving varying stories, with often disagreeing details is to notice which details the large majority agrees on. This is why multiple witnesses are much more reliable than just a lone witness: one can compare and see what they all agree on.

That brings to mind a different thing. I think you would find this interesting, like me. It was really surprising.

While this isn't required for Mark to be accurate -- it isn't required to have one of these people necessarily -- it is still a fascinating possibility one cannot rule out.

Such a person...might be drawn to go listen to this famous preacher, this person Jesus, and hear for themselves what all of the interest is about.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The problem is that the Gospels do copy each other frequently. And when they disagree, they frequently do so in a way that is clearly an intentional edit of what the previous Gospel writer wrote. And since Mark is an obviously unreliable source, the other Gospels cribbing and redacting him in theologically motivated ways are obviously not trustworthy either. And as I've tried to explain, that includes even their reporting of seemingly mundane details.

Well the question then is: where do we draw a line between how much matching information should there be between all the gospels and to what extent are they allowed to differ?

In order for them to be reliable at all they must have similarities in details.

So with the gospels we have a problem where people are criticizing them for having the same details and simultaneously criticizing them for being inconsistent.

If they are not allowed to be either, then what would authentic gospels look like?

Could you give examples of cribbing and redaction to elaborate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok that is a strwaman and I explained to you multiple times that this is not what I am claiming, I honestly and sincerely did my best effort in explaining my point, so ether

1 I am very bad in explaining stuff

2 you are very bad in understanding stuff

3 you are being dishonest.

How about the possibility that you are being dishonest? Why is that not listed there? Its absence is a bit damning.

Don’t worry I can take the blaim, maybe I am the one who is very bad in explaining stuff.


Last try….. You having the information (and the intent to report real historical events) is evidence that your friend had an experience that he interpreted as Buddha emerging from the earth and talking to him.

Multiple independent sources reporting that evident count as additional evidence

That your friend became a Buddhist and lost all his money as a consequence of that alleged experience counts as additional evidence.

None of this proves that the event actually happened but it proves with high degree of certainty that your friend had an experience that he interpreted as Buddha Emerging






Ok so in summery

1 I claimed the consensus among scholars is that Jesus died by Crucifixion.

2 you answered NO because the source is 20yo

So do you have an other source, better than mine, suggesting otherwise?

Wait a second . . . Are you now trying to limit what the gospels are accurate about? If you had clearly stated that the gospels are fairly reliable about Jesus being crucified you might now have found so much resistance. But if you make the logical error of assuming that because one part of the gospels may be reliable that they all parts are reliable. You won't get any agreement on that.

 

[Left Coast]

Well the question then is: where do we draw a line between how much matching information should there be between all the gospels and to what extent are they allowed to differ?

In order for them to be reliable at all they must have similarities in details.

So with the gospels we have a problem where people are criticizing them for having the same details and simultaneously criticizing them for being inconsistent.

If they are not allowed to be either, then what would authentic gospels look like?

Could you give examples of cribbing and redaction to elaborate?

Totally reasonable questions. I'm at work so can't do justice to them. Looking up Bible verses on my phone is a pain!

This weekend I'll post examples and provide more details.

 

[leroy]

There is a problem with eyewitnesses, especially over such long periods of time. People very often see what they want to see. As a result eyewitnesses are not all that reliable. Even worse those that are most passionate often are the most likely to misinterpret the events. Look at all of the "witnesses" in our recent election. When tested the eyewitnesses very often badly misinterpreted what they saw. Most of the corrections of what they misinterpreted seemed to come from other Republicans. And when there claims were tested they always failed, take Georgia with its multiple recounts, one of them a hand recount of all paper ballots plus an audit of signatures of mail in ballots. No cheating found. And massive cheating would have shown up. Add on to the fact that when people remember things in the past they tend to change the memories a bit and the stories do not appear to be reliable at all.

There is a problem with eyewitnesses, especially over such long periods of time. People very often see what they want to see.

Well if that is a serious and unsolvable problem then we would have to reject nearly all ancient history because in the best case scenario “eyewitness” is pretty much all we have.

The good news is that historians have a way to deal with this problem* for example if multiple independent witnesses (or sources) report the same event historians would conclude that the event is likely to be true.

Apart from multiple independent attestation, historians have other tools that help them determine if an event is historical or nor even with the problems with witnesses that you mentioned.

 

[Left Coast]

Well if that is a serious and unsolvable problem then we would have to reject nearly all ancient history because in the best case scenario “eyewitness” is pretty much all we have.

The good news is that historians have a way to deal with this problem* for example if multiple independent witnesses (or sources) report the same event historians would conclude that the event is likely to be true.

Apart from multiple independent attestation, historians have other tools that help them determine if an event is historical or nor even with the problems with witnesses that you mentioned.

The bad news is that when it comes to Jesus, we have zero eyewitnesses. Zero.

 

[leroy]

It's good to know also along these lines that Mark is widely thought to have been written down between 66-70AD, which puts it only about 35 years (roughly) after Christ.

That means of course that a 20 yr old that heard Christ in person still surviving would be in their mid fifties. While the average life expectancy in the era for those surviving already to at least age 10 was 47 if I recall, that simply confirms that a some portion would of course live longer, and 55 isn't that far past 47, so it will be still a thick part of the curve.
.

The problem is that many people (around 20%) died when they were babies, that reduced the average life span considerable, but once you are an adult it wouldn’t be unlikely to live 70 or even 80 years

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that's right: memories change, for most people (not everyone is the same though, it turns out). One of the only ways to know what happened from a large groups of witnesses giving varying stories, with often disagreeing details is to notice which details the large majority agrees on. This is why multiple witnesses are much more reliable than just a lone witness: one can compare and see what they all agree on.

That brings to mind a different thing. I think you would find this interesting, like me. It was really surprising.

While this isn't required for Mark to be accurate -- it isn't required to have one of these people necessarily -- it is still a fascinating possibility one cannot rule out.

Such a person...might be drawn to go listen to this famous preacher, this person Jesus, and hear for themselves what all of the interest is about.

Of course those people appear to be quite the rarity. The following is an article that describes what memory appears to be like for the rest of us:

Our Brains Rewrite Our Memories, Putting Present In The Past

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that many people (around 20%) died when they were babies, that reduced the average life span considerable, but once you are an adult it wouldn’t be unlikely to live 70 or even 80 years

I think that you missed that his figure was for those that lived at least to the age of ten. People dying as babies would not affect that value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if that is a serious and unsolvable problem then we would have to reject nearly all ancient history because in the best case scenario “eyewitness” is pretty much all we have.

The good news is that historians have a way to deal with this problem* for example if multiple independent witnesses (or sources) report the same event historians would conclude that the event is likely to be true.

Apart from multiple independent attestation, historians have other tools that help them determine if an event is historical or nor even with the problems with witnesses that you mentioned.

Real historians knew that passionate people were not the best witnesses. I am not sure if a Richard Carrier video was posted recently in this thread or not. I did not listen to all of it, but it had some interesting information in it and why the gospels were not written as histories. Even back then historians would rate their various sources. They would say that some of their sources were not as reliable as others. There is no rating of sources in the gospels, just the telling of stories. That makes them look far more like stories than like history.

 

[halbhh]

Of course those people appear to be quite the rarity. The following is an article that describes what memory appears to be like for the rest of us:

Our Brains Rewrite Our Memories, Putting Present In The Past

Ah, and then we can notice why stories or poems are specifically useful. Unlike random details from life for most people, a shared story has a whole different quality of memory and storage (group storage).

Here's just a random article of that sort I just searched up, but I've seen more than just a few.
Ancient Stories Could Be More Fact Than Fiction

 

[halbhh]

Well if that is a serious and unsolvable problem then we would have to reject nearly all ancient history because in the best case scenario “eyewitness” is pretty much all we have.

The good news is that historians have a way to deal with this problem* for example if multiple independent witnesses (or sources) report the same event historians would conclude that the event is likely to be true.

Apart from multiple independent attestation, historians have other tools that help them determine if an event is historical or nor even with the problems with witnesses that you mentioned.

Right.

Also, for any situation of a later written gospel, where an oral tradition is at work (in addition to reusing already existing writing like Mark), it's also found that group oral traditions are able to accurately convey information:

Ancient Stories Could Be More Fact Than Fiction
There are more articles than this one. Ask if you want more.

 

[leroy]

Real historians knew that passionate people were not the best witnesses. I am not sure if a Richard Carrier video was posted recently in this thread or not. I did not listen to all of it, but it had some interesting information in it and why the gospels were not written as histories. Even back then historians would rate their various sources. They would say that some of their sources were not as reliable as others. There is no rating of sources in the gospels, just the telling of stories. That makes them look far more like stories than like history.

the point of my comment was that all the problems that you mentioned about witnesses are not not serious nor unsolvable problems, historians can deal with those problems

agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, and then we can notice why stories or poems are specifically useful. Unlike random details from life for most people, a shared story has a whole different quality of memory and storage (group storage).

Here's just a random article of that sort I just searched up, but I've seen more than just a few.
Ancient Stories Could Be More Fact Than Fiction

True, but one has to be able to remove the fact from the fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the point of my comment was that all the problems that you mentioned about witnesses are not not serious nor unsolvable problems, historians can deal with those problems

agree?

Sometimes, but not always. If you want to claim that the Bible is reliable you cannot just handwave it as you always do when you argue. You need some valid arguments. You had none here and they were all refuted on the first page as usual.

 

[halbhh]

True, but one has to be able to remove the fact from the fiction.

Exactly my attitude. I tell people: test for yourself. Test and see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly my attitude. I tell people: test for yourself. Test and see.

"Testing for oneself" is not exactly the most reliable method. Most people do not know how to test properly. They usually test to confirm instead of testing to fail. Almost any result can be often interpreted as a "confirmation". If one does not have a reasonable test that could show one's beliefs to be false then their tests to confirm are not worth much.

 

[halbhh]

"Testing for oneself" is not exactly the most reliable method. Most people do not know how to test properly. They usually test to confirm instead of testing to fail. Almost any result can be often interpreted as a "confirmation". If one does not have a reasonable test that could show one's beliefs to be false then their tests to confirm are not worth much.

It took me about 10 years of extensive testing before I began to have a slight faith, or at least an interest to go past just the how-to-live-life instructions. It took at lot of repeated testing, and of more than just 2 or 3 instructions also, and in new circumstances and new ways, because I kept thinking I was just lucky or somehow creating the good outcomes myself.

Eventually it became clear that Christ knew what He was talking about on how to live a good life, one with a lot of rewards of various kinds like unusually good and unusually rewarding friendships and internal peace and other good things you'd have to experience yourself to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took me about 10 years of extensive testing before I began to have a slight faith, or at least an interest to go past just the how-to-live-life instructions. It took at lot of repeated testing, and of more than just 2 or 3 instructions also, and in new circumstances and new ways, because I kept thinking I was just lucky or somehow creating the good outcomes myself.

Eventually it became clear that Christ knew what He was talking about on how to live a good life, one with a lot of rewards of various kinds like unusually good and unusually rewarding friendships and internal peace and other good things you'd have to experience yourself to believe.

Jesus himself has quite a few good teachings in the Bible. But there is also quite a bit of nonsense in the Bible.

 

[leroy]

True, but one has to be able to remove the fact from the fiction.

Which has been donde, once you remove facts from fiction * (non facts) in the gospels you end up having a story of a jew, that lived in Palestine during the first half of the first century, who had many followers, 12 “special” disciples, had brothers and sisters, so himself like a divine person, traveled trough various towns and villages in Palestine, did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some, had some problems with the Jewish Sanhedrin, was crucified, was buried, and some of his followers founded the early Christian Church.