Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[Tiberius]

The authors of star trek didn't intended to report real histoy , srar trek fails at point 1

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

 

[Tiberius]

Not familiar with Babylon 5 sorry.


What the criteria of embarrassment says is that if a testimony has details that go against the purpose that the author has, then those details are likely to be true......and the author is likely to be honest.

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.

 

[Brian2]

Then by that logic all religious texts - from the Koran to the Gita - are true.

The gospels don't even agree what Jesus' final words were.

Are the gospels meant to be exactly the same?

 

[blü 2]

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

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.

And miracles were no more real 2000 years ago than they are now

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

There's no evidence of that either. Paul never met Jesus. The author of Mark wrote the first purported bio of Jesus some 45 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, and making up his plot from parts of the Tanakh that seemed to him useful as "messianic prophecies". and borrowing his trial scene from Josephus' account of the trial of another Jesus, and so on.

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death,

It does in Mark. As the authors of Matthew and Luke retell it, the Jesus character at the crucifixion moves from Mark's broken and defeated figure till we get to John's Jesus acting more like MC.

However, I agree it's a recognized rule in reading history that embarrassing stories are more likely to be true. The most curious one, I think, is how Jesus in all four gospels never has a kind word for his mother or his family, the sole exception being at John's crucifixion scene. See Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26. If I were making a case for an historical Jesus, I'd start with this.

 

[Tiberius]

Are the gospels meant to be exactly the same?

If they're describing the same event, why would they differ?

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Regarding point 1, which I would support using the epistles as they make passing references to things, I would say yes and no. The gospels are reliable historically regarding various things, especially culture, but so is historical fiction.

Regarding point 2, writers of historical fiction also have access to reliable sources which is why they can write such fiction.

To me it seems that the writers were honest in their recording of things (i am just judging it like I would any other document I have read), but that their writings were tainted by religion, superstition and other things, as honesty means truth about what they believed and perceived but doesn't necessarily correlate to reality.

Also, if you want to convince someone at the time of something, it is best that you include as much reference to modern day happenings as possible, as the religion must inevitably operate in the real world. Providing enough evidence information from history makes the history more credible. Also, it would make sense that the writers would get things wrong, as any of us here, if we try and record things without using the internet, would get facts about the world wrong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I personally don’t think it matters when it comes to morals, ethics and spirituality as the Gospels basically teach us to love one another, shun evil, be of good character, be forgiving and kind to all.

These are truths common all of the major religions.

 

[sayak83]

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.

1) It seems to me that the authors intended to spread Christianity by extolling the deeds of their revered messiah in these books. What reason is there to suppose they wished to be accurate then? It's more in keeping with a promotional booklet you get from an organization than an actual history.
2) A promotional booklet will also have correct details pertaining to general knowledge of the world of its readers accurate but be inaccurate about the actual nature of specific things, products, events it describes. It's task is to create a believable positively spinned story about the thing it wants the readers to buy into. Part of making it believable is not to make ridiculous errors about well known facts of the contemporary world.
3) The concept of reliability does not arise. A trained historian may get useful historical data on what the nascent church promoted and even believed had happened regarding Jesus, but that is no reason to suppose that these promoted beliefs were actually consistent with what happened.... anymore than the beliefs of, say those Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol regarding the legitimacy of US elections.

4) The concept of embarrassing details is a non-sequitor. Martyrdom for a cause is not embarassing ( see Socrates). Having women as prominent witness would go very well with the Greco-Roman hearers most of whom were women ( in Greco Roman world, women were more prominent in religious sects and movements). Etc.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not familiar with Babylon 5 sorry.


What the criteria of embarrassment says is that if a testimony has details that go against the purpose that the author has, then those details are likely to be true......and the author is likely to be honest.

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?

 

[viole]

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.

What is really embarrassing is that whoever invented them did not pay attention to logical consistency. Like the surprise the 12 experienced after the first reports of Jesus resurrection.

Ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES
Only in the USA.

 

[firedragon]

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

So you think Star Trek was reporting historical events?

On the front cover of the book "Spock must die" it says "Created for the famous television series".

Read the authors note.

Unlike the preceding three STAR TREK books, this one is not
a set of adaptations of scripts which have already been
shown on television, but an original novel built around the
characters and background of the TV series conceived by
Gene Roddenberry. I am grateful to the many fans of the
show who asked me to tackle such a project, and to Bantam
Books and Paramount Television for agreeing to it.
And who knows — it might make a television episode, or
several, some day. Although the American network
(bemused, as usual, by a rating service of highly dubious
statistical validity) has cancelled the series, it began to run
in Great Britain in mid-June 1969, and the first set of
adaptations was published concurrently in London by Corgi
Books. If the show is given a new lease on life through the
popularity of British reruns, it would not be the first such
instance in television history.
I, for one, refuse to believe that an enterprise so well
conceived, so scrupulously produced, and so widely loved
can stay boneyarded for long.
And I have 1,898 letters from people who don’t believe it
either.

So you are wrong mate.

 

[Valjean]

Which outright falsehoods?

1. How Many women came to Jesus' tomb?
2. What did she/they see?
3. What did she/they do afterwards?

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

And miracles were no more real 2000 years ago than they are now
There's no evidence of that either. Paul never met Jesus. The author of Mark wrote the first purported bio of Jesus some 45 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, and making up his plot from parts of the Tanakh that seemed to him useful as "messianic prophecies". and borrowing his trial scene from Josephus' account of the trial of another Jesus, and so on.
It does in Mark. As the authors of Matthew and Luke retell it, the Jesus character at the crucifixion moves from Mark's broken and defeated figure till we get to John's Jesus acting more like MC.

However, I agree it's a recognized rule in reading history that embarrassing stories are more likely to be true. The most curious one, I think, is how Jesus in all four gospels never has a kind word for his mother or his family, the sole exception being at John's crucifixion scene. See Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26. If I were making a case for an historical Jesus, I'd start with this.

I never thought of your last point before. Interesting.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If they're describing the same event, why would they differ?

It makes sense that retellings of stories would differ.

I am sure that with people recalling 911, everybody would say that planes flew into the twin towers. Some would say that there were three towers flown into while only two were focused on. Some would remember that the Pentagon was also damaged. There would be different recollections of how many people died. Some would say that muslim terrorists did it while others would say that it was a false flag attack.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible writers differ on details while recalling an actual event. That is why, like people knowing that planes flew into the twin towers, the writers of the gospels all recall the crucifixion of Jesus, which is most likely true, but differ on lots of other things.

 

[Valjean]

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

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.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

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

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows

The authors had a personal agenda, and their sources were hearsay, at best.

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.

 

[leroy]

Oh my!! You do have a problem understanding your errors. Certain biblical scholars that already want to believe the mythos use this as an excuse. Now if real scholars, historical scholars, used this then you might have a point. Many scholars will simply laugh at such a claim.

The criteria of embarrassment is related to point 1 in the OP.......which you already granted.


Just for your info, this is a quote from a Josephus scholar who uses the criteria of embarrassment.

To accept Josephus' often tendentious evaluation of the motives and characters of the Jews and Romans whose actions constitute his narrative would be rash, but to accept the details of his narrative, particularly when they contradict his own explanations of events, and so survive in the narrative only because they happened, is reasonable.Non-Biblical Historians and the Criteria of Embarassment

 

[leroy]

Not
The political structure of Jerusalem as some areas in the region are common knowledge. Spiderman is in Queens, New-York City and accurately describe the existence of mayors, governors, US Presidents and a variety of police officials and the structure of some media corporations and even some historical events and social upheavals. Spiderman comic books aren't historical documents.

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 .

Spiderman comic books aren't historical documents

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)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Paul and tacitus: corroborate the crusifiction

Both simply report what christians believed.
They aren't corroborating anything but what christians believed.

Josephus corroborates that there was a Caephas a Peter a James etc.

The villages and toes where real, we can very for example that there was sea in galley,

Josephus corroborates the political structure of Jerusalem


Etc

Only someone with access to good sources would know all this

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again you don't need to know who the author is, in order to conclude that a document is reliable.

Of course. You have the ability to conclude damn near anything you want, but why anyone should consider that a positive attribute is beyond me.