• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

joelr

Well-Known Member
Mark, John, Pauls letters and Acts are all independent sources and they all mentioned the existence of “disciples” as real historical persons…………………………demining secular sources form the 1st century is raising the bar unrealistically to high.

By your logic, we can’t conclude that Alexander the Grate existed because there are no “non Greek” sources from the years -300s



Paul only knows of a Jesus who rose from the dead. He knows of no earthly Jesus or any of the material from the gospels. The narrative starts with Mark. For a time academia believed there was a Q gospel, a common source. But Mark Goodacre wrote an excellent book that pretty much ended that idea. Now scholarship is confident that Mark is the source gospel.

So the reason they mention disciples is because they were mentioned in Mark. Not because each author knew of the story from other sources.


The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org


The Synoptic Problem

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as well as when he wrote.

Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction1


The remarkable verbal agreement between the gospels suggests some kind of interdependence. It is popular today among laymen to think in terms of independence—and to suggest either that the writers simply recorded what happened and therefore agree, or that they were guided by the Holy Spirit into writing the same things. This explanation falls short on several fronts.

a. Historical Naiveté
b. Naiveté Regarding Inspiration

When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke.


Among other things are mistakes Mark made which are copied verbatim into other gospels:
"
Stein lists three broad categories of Mark’s poorer stylistic abilities: (1) colloquialisms and incorrect grammar, (2) Aramaic expressions, and (3) redundancies. The first and second arguments are significant for pericopes which Mark shares with either Matthew or Luke; the third is valuable for considering material omitted in Mark."


The most favored solution in scholarship is the Markan priority or that Mark was first and the source of the others.

To sum up reasons for Markan priority, the following eight arguments have been given.

(1) The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericopae parallel Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.

(2) The argument from grammar. Matthew and especially Luke use better grammar and literary style than Mark, suggesting that they used Mark, but improved on it.

(3) The argument from harder readings. On the analogy of early scribal habits, Luke and Matthew apparently removed difficulties from Mark’s Gospel in making their own. If Matthean priority is assumed, then what is inexplicable is why Mark would have introduced such difficulties.

(4) The argument from verbal agreement. There are fewer Matthew-Luke verbal agreements than any other two-gospel verbal agreements. This is difficult to explain on the Griesbach hypothesis, much easier on the Lachmann/Streeter hypothesis.

(5) The argument from agreement in order. Not only do Luke and Matthew never agree with each other when they depart from Mark’s order, but the reasons for this on the assumption of Markan priority are readily available while on Matthean priority they are not.

(6) The argument from literary agreements. Very close to the redactional argument, this point stresses that on literary analysis, it is easier to see Matthew’s use of Mark than vice versa.

(7) The argument from redaction. The redactional emphases in Mark, especially in his stylistic minutiae, are only inconsistently found in Matthew and Luke, while the opposite is not true. In other words, Mark’s style is quite consistent, while Luke and Matthew are inconsistent—when they parallel Mark, there is consistency; when they diverge, they depart from such. This suggests that Mark was the source for both Matthew and Luke.

(8) The argument from Mark’s more primitive theology. On many fronts Mark seems to display a more primitive theology than either Luke or Matthew. This suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark, altering the text to suit their purposes.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You made a big deal because the authors of the gospels are unknown,.So my question is should we reject all historical sources that where written by anonymous authors?..............if no then why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?
We reject historical sources that are clearly not historical sources but re-writes of myth.
Here is another re-working in Mark, the Passover narrative matches with a Jesus ben Ananias story which Josephus wrote about (another likely source of Mark):

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)

3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)

19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)

The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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
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.

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??????
View attachment 47451

As I said before misuse of terminology. What you describe above does not represent forgeries. Check your dictionary.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
As I said before misuse of terminology. What you describe above does not represent forgeries. Check your dictionary.

Shunty, a straight question: Bart Ehrman, a respected Bible scholar calls them "Forgeries". Are you contradicting a respected Bible scholar who knows his stuff???????
upload_2021-2-2_22-13-48.jpeg
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
We reject historical sources that are clearly not historical sources but re-writes of myth.
Here is another re-working in Mark, the Passover narrative matches with a Jesus ben Ananias story which Josephus wrote about (another likely source of Mark):

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)

3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)

19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)

The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.
Are you familiar with" Dragon Ball " (the cartoon)?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You're not reading the entirety. My objection is not just that they're anonymous but that they were written by non-Jews who weren't even in Israel when the events occurred. They were not eyewitnesses and their accounts were written for 50 to 100 years after the events so how could there be any veracity to them? Taken as a whole, based on those five criteria I say the gospels should be rejected as true accounts of the life of this Jesus myth. Each anonymous work is taken on a case by case basis and examined for the circumstances behind their creation.


Ok so should we reject all historical documents that where not written by eye witnesses 50+ after the event?

The point that I am trying to make is that in ancient history we usually have anonymos documents written decades (if not centuries) after the event by non-witnesses. But historians don’t simply reject all these documents.

Points 1 and 2 form the OP could still be true even after the fact that the documents are anonymous, written 50+ after the fact and by non witnesses.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The author of John never forthrightly claims to be an eyewitness. Instead he raises a skein of inference about the "beloved disciple" and "eyewitnesses" which never become specific and may be no more than a form of narrative art.
The only point that I made is that the 90s is not too late for eye witness authorship………….do you grant this particular point?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Try the 1st century. that's when the apostles were supposedly wandering around. If nobody outside the Bible mentions them, how can we corroborate what the gospels say? Historians don't recognize the gospels as historical documents, that's a fact. If the gospels are our only source and they are anonymous and written up to 100 years after Jesus then they aren't much more than fairy tales made up by authors who had no access to eyewitnesses.
Well support your assertion, what is your evidence that these are fairy tales? …………..for example would grant that Exodus is a Myth, but we have good positive reasons to make such a claim , cn you do the same with the gosplels?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Well support your assertion, what is your evidence that these are fairy tales? …………..for example would grant that Exodus is a Myth, but we have good positive reasons to make such a claim , cn you do the same with the gosplels?

Perhaps fairy tales is not a good choice of words. IMHO the gospels are fictional statements of faith.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, granted why would I trust a theologian from the 200s with good reputation and responsible of writing important documents,

Next Time I will simply ask you.
Because there is a very high pressure on such people to write something that supports their beliefs, not something that could possibly refute it. He had too strong of a vested interest. Ask historians why they are not seen as reliable.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
1) The authors wrote in a highly mythic style and in a different language. If Jesus were a teacher it would have been at least 40 years earlier and in Aramaic. The authors did not intend to report what happened, this is a fact. The first gospel is Mark and he literally uses prior fiction and parables to tell a story that is exactly like similar fiction of the time.

This essay breaks down many of the mythic literary devices used. Here are a few, first we see Mark uses an OT narrative:

"Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason."


Then writes about how Mark uses the Kings narrative from the OT

"Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead."

and later explains how he uses ring structure and triadic cycles. This is not historical, this is pure myth writing.
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark




He did not. Richard Carrier has an excellent sourced essay on all of the dying/rising demigods known to be prior to Jesus. Just like Neo in the Matrix being killed and rising again is the central part of the story. All of the savior demigods undergo a passion. This is central to the myth.


The message of this gospel is "the least shall be first" and is full of counter-expectations with the least expected being first. Like the women finding the tomb.


Actually that isn't totally true. There are signs that there may have been. But when the gospels were written they were set in history the same as Marvel comics writes about superheroes in NY city. There are many real life characters written into the fiction. Why would religious fiction be any different? Did you bother to check if the same thing happens in Islam or Hindu stories? The Greek epics are set among real wars.
How do you know that the Mithras gospels didn't mention actual Roman leaders?



As we have seen Mark clearly used the OT as a source. We know he borrowed from other mystery religions because not only is Jesus a late comer to the resurrection scene but there are many other things borrowed from the mystery religions. Carrier has a lecture on all the things borrowed from earlier mystery religions in the gospels.

Going beyond Mark we have Matthew which contains 97% of the original Greek. Christian scholarship no longer believes the gospels are independent but rather sourced from Mark.
This is from bible.com:

"
The Synoptic Problem
Related Media
Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as well as when he wrote.

Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction1 summarizes well the issues involved in the synoptic problem—as well as its probable solution. For the most part, our discussion will follow his outline.2

A. The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

So yes they had good sources, each other, the OT and other religions.




In this case there is no doubt that the author was sourcing older fiction and writing myth. It could not be clearer that this work is exactly the same as all religions since the beginning of religion.

This supposition above actually makes no sense because we already have thousands of other religious scripture that you would admit has the appearance of being accurate and reliable but we know it's myth. So for some reason you find this one case to be some sort of exception? That is incredibly unlikely. At any rate it shows that the appearance of accuracy and reliability doesn't mean it's true.

Also there isn't anything "accurate" about highly improbable events, unsourced stories, biographic histories were often fiction in those days so this idea that these are accurate is odd. The author does not claim to be eyewitness either

"First of all, before even identifying or examining these literary constructs, allegories, and prospective elements of myth, we can already see by reading the Gospels that they fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity). The authors never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge that they did such a thing in the first place — despite the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly relied on Mark as a source (as did John, though less obviously so), for example, and then they all redacted Mark’s version as needed to serve their own literary and theological purposes (which explains some of the contradictions found between one Gospel and another). Instead, the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories."

In my opinion and the opinion of many scholars, Mark was referencing the Old Testament particularly psalm 22 in order to give credence to his Christ tale by making it appear that Jesus was fulfilling Ot prophecy. But it's the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" problem: was Jesus actually fulfilling OT prophecy OR were the gospel writers just fashioning OT prosaic scriptures into literal events to make it appear Jesus was fulfilling prophecies? It's quite simple for a fiction writer to grab a line like "Why have you forsaken me" out of something written centuries earlier and then put it in the mouth of your main character as he hangs on a cross and say, "See! jesus said the same words as David in Psalm 22. Jesus is fulfilling David's prophecy" even though the psalm was never meant to be prophetic.

Excellent response, by the way.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Because there is a very high pressure on such people to write something that supports their beliefs, not something that could possibly refute it. He had too strong of a vested interest. Ask historians why they are not seen as reliable.
The claim is that John died in the year 110……………what sort of secret and evil motive would Clement have in order to invent that lie?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The claim is that John died in the year 110……………what sort of secret and evil motive would Clement have in order to invent that lie?
You are changing your claims now. It appears that you want to know what his motivation to make that lie would be? John was the last gospel written. By putting a ludicrously high date on John's death it makes it appear more likely that John could have written that gospel. Was that an "evil" lie? Not necessarily. Was it self serving? Yes, no doubt about it.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You are changing your claims now. It appears that you want to know what his motivation to make that lie would be? John was the last gospel written. By putting a ludicrously high date on John's death it makes it appear more likely that John could have written that gospel. Was that an "evil" lie? Not necessarily. Was it self serving? Yes, no doubt about it.
Yes my theory is that Clement knew that in the 21th century anonymous atheist from forums where going to claim that the 90s is “too late” for eye witnesses , so conveniently and anticipating that objection he invented Johns dead in within the year 110.

Understand this, my claim is not that John is the author of the Gospel, my claims is that the 90s is recent enough for eyewitness verification, even if the gospel where not written by a witness, there would still be eyewitness around that could ether verify or correct any claims.


By putting a ludicrously high date on John's death
Do the math, many teenagers and adults that knew Jesus would have still be alive by the 90s or even 110, whats so ludricous about that?
 
Last edited:
Top