How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[halbhh]

Its an important point that regardless of whether or not the author was a first hand eye witness or more likely recorded what he heard from oral traditions, it was first recorded within a time when some of those who met Jesus would have still been alive. However it is an unlikely assumption the author recorded verbatim historical events. Mark was most likely written to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ as opposed to a purely historic account.

Yes, we've heard quite a few widely thought theories, haven't we? Perhaps the most common theory out there is that Mark was written using stories people had heard a lot at that time, chosen according to the preferences of the group doing the writing. But of course, that a theory is popular tells us little about whether it is correct.

To me personally, all the theories were irrelevant at the time I was reading in the gospels carefully in my 20s, because I intended to find the practical ideas for how to live, so that I could test them.

Try them out and compare quality of life outcomes to dozens of other ideas from other old traditions and thinkers that had endured the centuries that I was also trying out.

I didn't believe any theory about the gospels' accuracy -- not one theory or another -- and used no assumptions/beliefs of any kind. Not even counter beliefs.

I simply tried out doing the instructions for how to live -- e.g. "love your neighbor as yourself" for instance -- to find out if these ideas caused more enjoyment/energy/thriving than other instructions/ideas from other sources I'd been testing.

"Try and see" -- anyone could do that.

It requires zero faith. But perhaps at times some...ambition or courage, to try new things or do what can sometimes feel risky on one level. Leaving a comfort zone. I'm glad I did!

 

[pearl]

Its an important point that regardless of whether or not the author was a first hand eye witness or more likely recorded what he heard from oral traditions, it was first recorded within a time when some of those who met Jesus would have still been alive. However it is an unlikely assumption the author recorded verbatim historical events. Mark was most likely written to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ as opposed to a purely historic account.

I think it is doubtful that many of the 12 were still alive at the time of the first gospel. The authors are for the most part anonymous, the names attributed by the church. There is suggested that the 'Apostolic Age' ought to be confined to the 2nd one-third of the 1st century, with the last one third of the century designated as the 'Sub-Apostolic Period'.

 

[firedragon]

I think it is doubtful that many of the 12 were still alive at the time of the first gospel. The authors are for the most part anonymous, the names attributed by the church. There is suggested that the 'Apostolic Age' ought to be confined to the 2nd one-third of the 1st century, with the last one third of the century designated as the 'Sub-Apostolic Period'.

Lets say Mark was written around 60-70 AD. And Jesus passed away in 30 AD. Assuming his Disciples were 25 to 35, they would be 60 - 70 years of age at the time Mark was written. Its true that life expectancy at the time would have been less than 50 years of age, but 1 or 2 of the disciples could have been alive during the period.

These are all assumptions, we don't know if his disciples were of this age at all, but there is always a possibility. I am not contending this was definitely the case nor to I contend that a disciple definitely provided information to the author of Mark, yet you cannot deem that some of them being alive at the time is "doubtful" because there is a possibility, even if the disciple lived in another country and never met the author.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think it is doubtful that many of the 12 were still alive at the time of the first gospel. The authors are for the most part anonymous, the names attributed by the church. There is suggested that the 'Apostolic Age' ought to be confined to the 2nd one-third of the 1st century, with the last one third of the century designated as the 'Sub-Apostolic Period'.

It is reasonable to consider the author of Mark may have met one of the first hand eye witnesses perhaps well before the Gospel was written. At the very least they probably heard preaching based on the recollection of what a first hand eye witness said.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, we've heard quite a few widely thought theories, haven't we? Perhaps the most common theory out there is that Mark was written using stories people had heard a lot at that time, chosen according to the preferences of the group doing the writing. But of course, that a theory is popular tells us little about whether it is correct.

To me personally, all the theories were irrelevant at the time I was reading in the gospels carefully in my 20s, because I intended to find the practical ideas for how to live, so that I could test them.

Try them out and compare quality of life outcomes to dozens of other ideas from other old traditions and thinkers that had endured the centuries that I was also trying out.

I didn't believe any theory about the gospels' accuracy -- not one theory or another -- and used no assumptions/beliefs of any kind. Not even counter beliefs.

I simply tried out doing the instructions for how to live -- e.g. "love your neighbor as yourself" for instance -- to find out if these ideas caused more enjoyment/energy/thriving than other instructions/ideas from other sources I'd been testing.

"Try and see" -- anyone could do that.

It requires zero faith. But perhaps at times some...ambition or courage, to try new things or do what can sometimes feel risky on one level. Leaving a comfort zone. I'm glad I did!

The OP question is about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, not about whether the Teachings make us better human beings. I have no doubt the value of loving others, seeing the good in others, avoiding fault finding, back biting and gossip, and being truthful, just and forgiving. Of course Christianity isn't the only religion to emphasise these qualities.

 

[lukethethird]

It is reasonable to consider the author of Mark may have met one of the first hand eye witnesses perhaps well before the Gospel was written. At the very least they probably heard preaching based on the recollection of what a first hand eye witness said.

The unknown author of Mark drew heavily from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew scripture, what we now call the Old Testament. He pulled lines from these ancient scriptures to write a new story reflecting his current times. It appears he had Paul's epistles before him as well. It also appears that he preferred literary sources rather than oral considering what we can trace to earlier writings.

 

[firedragon]

The unknown author of Mark drew heavily from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew scripture, what we now call the Old Testament. He pulled lines from these ancient scriptures to write a new story reflecting his current times. It appears he had Paul's epistles before him as well. It also appears that he preferred literary sources rather than oral considering what we can trace to earlier writings.

Yes, of course he drew from the septuagint. He was a Greek writer and not a peasant but a learned author. But the problem lies in his drawing from the septuagint, he either made errors or the septuagint he had with him had errors or a different form written by a different group. Also, you are right to think that Paul wrote before Mark so Mark would have had had Pauls epistles with him. Mark also is similar in the portrayal of Jesus and dissimilar to other writers like John. But Mark in that case only got a macro picture about Jesus's divinity from Paul, but some points are missing strangely. For example, Jesus appearing to James is a huge issue, but not in Mark. Thus, either Mark was siding with Paul and intentionally neglected James or he didn't know about it. Also, the Christology seems to be different where Mark poses an adoptionists view. Jesus seems to soften the Mosaic law while making accusations like they are following tradition and going to the other extreme mixing the Torah and tradition, but Paul seems to abandon the law unlike the Markan theology of Jesus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The unknown author of Mark drew heavily from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew scripture, what we now call the Old Testament. He pulled lines from these ancient scriptures to write a new story reflecting his current times. It appears he had Paul's epistles before him as well. It also appears that he preferred literary sources rather than oral considering what we can trace to earlier writings.

So what is the evidence he relied on Paul and why would it matter if he did?

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, of course he drew from the septuagint. He was a Greek writer and not a peasant but a learned author. But the problem lies in his drawing from the septuagint, he either made errors or the septuagint he had with him had errors or a different form written by a different group. Also, you are right to think that Paul wrote before Mark so Mark would have had had Pauls epistles with him. Mark also is similar in the portrayal of Jesus and dissimilar to other writers like John. But Mark in that case only got a macro picture about Jesus's divinity from Paul, but some points are missing strangely. For example, Jesus appearing to James is a huge issue, but not in Mark. Thus, either Mark was siding with Paul and intentionally neglected James or he didn't know about it. Also, the Christology seems to be different where Mark poses an adoptionists view. Jesus seems to soften the Mosaic law while making accusations like they are following tradition and going to the other extreme mixing the Torah and tradition, but Paul seems to abandon the law unlike the Markan theology of Jesus.

You make some interesting points, one in particular is that some scholars have suggested as you have that Mark sided with Paul over James. In Mark the names of Jesus's three main disciples are James, Peter, (Cephas), and John, the same names as the apostles that Paul meets in Jerusalem. Mark portrays these three as disciples of Jesus and as dimwits in that they just never get it so Jesus has to continually explain things to them. According to Paul, he and this Jerusalem group had to agree to disagree on a major issue such as preaching to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jerusalem group agreed to continue preaching to the Jews while Paul went on his way preaching to the Gentiles.

 

[lukethethird]

So what is the evidence he relied on Paul and why would it matter if he did?

Read my post #229 for one reason why it matters.

 

[firedragon]

You make some interesting points, one in particular is that some scholars have suggested as you have that Mark sided with Paul over James. In Mark the names of Jesus's three main disciples are James, Peter, (Cephas), and John, the same names as the apostles that Paul meets in Jerusalem. Mark portrays these three as disciples of Jesus and as dimwits in that they just never get it so Jesus has to continually explain things to them. According to Paul, he and this Jerusalem group had to agree to disagree on a major issue such as preaching to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jerusalem group agreed to continue preaching to the Jews while Paul went on his way preaching to the Gentiles.

Which could mean Paul drew from a common historical source as mark but invested in his own theological position.

 

[lukethethird]

Which could mean Paul drew from a common historical source as mark but invested in his own theological position.

Paul reveals his sources, namely revelations as in visions of a Christ and his ancient Jewish scriptures. He reads Christ into everything he reads in scripture. edit, Paul also makes it clear that he did not learn of Jesus from anyone else, scriptures and visions was his only source, and a trip to the third heaven.

 

[pearl]

It is reasonable to consider the author of Mark may have met one of the first hand eye witnesses perhaps well before the Gospel was written. At the very least they probably heard preaching based on the recollection of what a first hand eye witness said.

Yes there was an oral tradition prior to the penning of the NT. Jesus preached one thing with the urgency of 'now', the immediacy of the coming of the Kingdom of God. If it is true that Jesus and his followers expected this within their lifetime, there is little reason for writing for future generations. With the death of the Apostles and yet the Kingdom not realized, was probably the catalyst for the written Gospels. We actually know little of the original Apostles according to the NT itself beyond two sets of brothers, (Peter and Andrew), James and John). Andrew disappears, James is martyred (40's?), John is mentioned in few scenes, later tradition identified him as the beloved disciple of the gospel of John but nothing certain. According to tradition Peter and Paul died in Rome (60's?), James (brother of the Lord) died in Jerusalem (also 60's).

 

[firedragon]

Paul reveals his sources, namely revelations as in visions of a Christ and his ancient Jewish scriptures. He reads Christ into everything he reads in scripture. edit, Paul also makes it clear that he did not learn of Jesus from anyone else, scriptures and visions was his only source, and a trip to the third heaven.

Revelations was written 50 years after Saul brother.

 

[lukethethird]

Revelations was written 50 years after Saul brother.

Not the book.

 

[firedragon]

Not the book.

Ah. So his source is personal revelation direct form Jesus! That was your point?

Not relevant to the exchange you responded to.

 

[lukethethird]

Ah. So his source is personal revelation direct form Jesus! That was your point?

Not relevant to the exchange you responded to.

Yes, personal revelation, he claimed to have visions of Christ.

edit; Sources are relevant to any claim.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, personal revelation, he claimed to have visions of Christ.

edit; Sources are relevant to any claim.

Of course he claimed.

Anyway, cheers.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations but the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist definitely fits well. Intention of a gospel is to present and justify Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus as a baptised follower of JtB is contrary to this purpose. So why would it be included in the story? All authors of gospels had to include it because it actually happened. It was a well known fact at the time. Gospel writers had to put a lot of effort to persuade the readers that Jesus is still greater. For example Mark explained (tried to get away with) the baptism as a heavenly adoption ceremony supported with John's humble forecast.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Of course he claimed.

Anyway, cheers.

The important thing is that the record remains as part of God given scripture. Thus I see we can choose to learn from it or not.

To me that is also the choice we are given with the Quran, is it God given to learn from, or is it not?

I see the Bible supports scriptures given in such a way, that the Words are not direct from God but given through a Messenger, they are given via the acceptance of the Messenger (Source of Holy Spirit).

Such as

2 Peter 1:21"For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I see this is authentic guidance to Hadith as well and as we know any Hadith has to find support from the Mother Book.

Regards Tony