How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[Terry Sampson]

You don't need to be a dog in the race, you just need to have a case.

No dog, no case: You're irrelevant.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I can easily say its just bias.

Yes, indeed. The moment someone says that "ideal criticism" is to be measured against the work product of modern biblical scholars, that person has begun to declare his or her bias. How so?
For kicks, I'll start here:

• Acts 17. Paul Addresses the Areopagus
  • 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for "In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Setting aside the fascinating tale of the semi-mythical Cretan seer, Epimenides, and his claim regarding Zeus, I invite attention to one very Jewish notion of the nature of God that I've found. [For a lengthy introduction to some Jewish "theology", see the attachment below, from which I quote as follows:

• “God” is an imprecise name for the only thing in the universe that actually exists.
• There is one infinite creator, the cause of causes and the maker of all. He is not one in a numerical sense — since He is not subject to change, definition or multiplicity. He is one in that the number one signifies an independent unit and is the basis of all numbers; the number one is also contained in all numbers. Similarly, the Creator is actually within everything, and everything is within Him. He is the beginning and cause of everything. The Creator does not change, and therefore one cannot add or subtract from Him.
  
  Moreover, His existence is necessary existence (i.e. it is not contingent upon anything else), in the same way that the number one is a requisite for the existence of any other (whole) number. If the number one would cease to be, every other number would also cease to exist. However, if other numbers disappeared, one would continue to exist. There are properties of the number one; similar qualities apply to the Creator. Even if the act ceased to be, the One who acted remains. Because His being is not contingent upon the existence of anything else, were they to cease being, His existence would continue.

From that concept of God which seems to me to correspond to Paul's much briefer description, I shift my focus to the God who interacts with human beings, according to the Hebrew Tanakh: the One who entered into a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; who appeared to Moses in the burning bush; and later entered into a covenant with Israel at Sinai. The latter One is, presumably, the Infinite Eternal One.

Now, correct me if I miss something. From what I know of the Tanakh and the Christian Scriptures, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, God communicates to humans through the following media:

• Nature: natural events;
• Visions;
• Dreams;
• The indwelling Holy Spirit who, when active gives:
  • the utterance of wisdom,
  • the utterance of knowledge,
  • faith,
  • gifts of healing,
  • the working of miracles,
  • prophecy,
  • the ability to distinguish between spirits,
  • various kinds of tongues, and
    
  • the interpretation of tongues.
• The Shekhinah: e.g. the Fiery Presence at the Burning Bush, the Cloud by Day and the Fire by Night that led Israel through the desert and appeared to Moses on Sinai; and
• The Bat Kol (the Voice from Heaven): e.g. the voice that spoke at Jesus' baptism and his transfiguration, and
  
• Through Angels.

Having said all of that--which, by the way, I personally accept and easily believe without hesitation or shame--what credibility should I be expected to give to the "ideal criticism" of someone, whether of a modern biblical scholar or not, who does not share my beliefs?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi.......
It amazes me, how intellectuals spin themselves in to mists of complexity, when in fact the historical content of reports about the Baptist are so simple.
Yes..... simple.
The people wanted to be cleansed, but they also had to attend the Temple regularly and pay in to its funds. We read, later on, how folks like Paul were contracted as an enforcer to this end. Josephus adds clarity there.
The Temple coinage was a smack in the teeth for decent working people. The image of Baal on the obverse, graven images on reverse and Caesar's abbreviated name in Greek there as well.
The people of and around Jerusalem looked down upon, patronised and fleeced the visiting peasants, made fun of their voices.
The Temple priesthood (Vipers!) didn't care about anything but money. The currency exchange rates were a rip-off.

And a man who was apart from all that 'sin', who self subsisted out in the wastes to the East of Jordan came to the river, to offer 'cleansing' to all.......... for nothing! And the Temple and its sick trades began to fall away because so many people flocked to John (and his disciples).

Why did Antopas have to arrest John, and not Pilate? Easy, but I never read any ideas from any professors.... !

All that's needed for study is the archaeology, the coinage, the actual cultures, the farming, the trades, the politics, and the earliest gospels possible, because well-meaning Christians did mess with them later on.

The first verse of G-Mark was increased by four words...... leaving just eight in the earliest bibles! That's how much sieving needs to be done.

Much of your material from your post is accurate but it doesn't need all the spin. That could all have been precised down to about four paragraphs, but these authors do love their words so.

Well, that was certainly entertaining -- wholly irrelevant but entertaining. Loved the part about "Vipers!".

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

I recently commented about how the Rome liked to choose its History rather than record it. This is part of the environment in which the gospels are written. I don't know if this matters but its good to be aware. If you look at the introduction to Livy, the Roman Historian who lives in Roman times, he tells you that Roman History is an invention. This doesn't mean that the gospels are an invention, but it does mean that the idea of History is different in those times.

We don't have accurate records. There are some very different theories that can't be easily eliminated, and Romans are notorious for being willing to toss their own history in order to embrace a fictional one that is more universal to all ethnic groups. Their own historians openly tell us that this is so. The Roman historians tell us that Rome's history is fictional, that the original history has been replaced. They believe that all histories are all the same, so long before 0CE they opt to have the best possible all encompassing history. The Romans are fine with that and are not concerned with their actual detailed History. I wouldn't put it past them to rework their national religion the same way and invent a history to suit it. The real history of Christianity must I think be found in what causes the Romans to convert. Do they convert? Are they real Christians like the texts describe? I look for the reasoning both moral and emotional and the history of those. None of the writers can be trusted in any ultimate sense. They can be studied and facts checked, writers checked against one another and against copies. They are Romans though, so if they don't like the History then maybe they'll just change it? Perhaps in their minds its the same as changing what actually happened.

***edit*** let me expand to point something out. In modern times we have professors of literature who have read so much literature that they can categorize stories by the plot. Its possible for Roman people to view History the same way, to photoshop it, to view it as rather than a detailed account a meaning or a flower. Instead of telling details they smush all histories together into a super category -- like a Platonic Solid version of History, like the ideal of History. They seek to tell the 'Pure' version of History which will apply to all people.

 

[oldbadger]

No dog, no case: You're irrelevant.

And that is how the uneducated try to challenge a basic and simple case.

You wouldn't stand a chance with me, Terry, so you chuck an insult and scurry away, eh? That looks so weak.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, that was certainly entertaining -

Well at least I didn't get your usual *snore-yawn* insult. That's a move forward for you.

- wholly irrelevant

You didn't notice the thread title, did you?
Here you are:-
How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

You should read and keep thread titles in mind.

but entertaining.

....come on...... let's see what you've got.

Loved the part about "Vipers!".

Which is exactly what the Temple (mostly) priesthood was, back then.

Matthew {3:7} But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

You do know what came, don't you?
If you've got it, bring it on.
If you haven't then that's alright. i'll understand.

 

[oldbadger]

I recently commented about how the Rome liked to choose its History rather than record it. This is part of the environment in which the gospels are written. I don't know if this matters but its good to be aware. If you look at the introduction to Livy, the Roman Historian who lives in Roman times, he tells you that Roman History is an invention.

The politics could have been edited and manipulated, but if you look at any records of how Rome was built, or a great building like the Coliseum, any such description being hard to believe on its own, when the actual remains are viewed we can see that Roman history is not all invention. I think that Roman history is fairly sound..... how about you?

This doesn't mean that the gospels are an invention, but it does mean that the idea of History is different in those times.

The gospel stories were certainly messed with, but the basic story looks pretty sound, don't you agree?
John's gospel whilst full of very valuable details imo. But the mission expanded to three years rather than about 12 months, and the miracles adjusted to exclude the menial healings and include the Lazarus stuff.

 

[sojourner]

The problem is not simply bias, and I think you actually touched upon this in your previous post. Their religious significance not only outshines their utility as historical texts, but completely warps and distorts it to the point where I would argue that they are largely unusable as historical sources by sheer virtue of being so loaded with religious importance to so many people.

Well... AFAIK, that is bias. But I think the more important issue is that they were written to be theological texts, not historical texts. So, of course their usefulness as theological texts outweighs their weight as historic texts.

 

[sojourner]

Listening to professors who often disagree with each other can just produce graduates who mimic professors who disagree with each other.

To actually investigate the gospels requires Individual Investigation and not Institutional Indoctrination. You have to ask yourself questions and then research diligently, looking for possible answers. Then you can work with the balance of probabilities.

Ya think?

 

[oldbadger]

Ya think?

........ therefore I am.
Sure.....

 

[oldbadger]

How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

by @adrian009

So many single verses (collected together) can help to build 'views', each view helping to build the account.

Example?
Nazareth is a Rocky hill of about 1000', with only one possible building foundation from the early first century (as far as we know). Oil lamp remains have been found there but not much else. This has led to books such as 'The myth of Nazareth' because it doesn't look as if there could have been much of a community living there, hence its all a junk story.

And then you read a little history, look at a map, research early 1st century dwelling techniques and read some verses.

King Herod loved his little city of Zippori (Sepphoris) which, perched high on a hilltop looked to him like a bird's nest. After his death it was overrun by a Bandit's gang and after the Syrian Legate had sent Roman legions to take it back it was razed to the ground. But Antipas loved its position and set about rebuilding it, a city of about 7 acres of fine buildings and probably with suburbs surrounding these.

He needed tradesmen and artisans. They needed secure homes to leave their families in safety. They mostly would have settled on the hills that surrounded and not far away from Zippori.

Tradesman moved to where there was work. They needed to take their homes with them. So let's see what we can find about all that.

1. We are looking for communities around Zippori.
John {2:1} And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
John 1:45} Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, .............Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

....and we find not just two, but three or more hilltop communities around Zippori (Sepphoris). Please see the map below which shows Two communities which could have been Cana, Nazareth, and another called Simonias. Four in all.

But there are no foundations for buildings there! But then we see in the gospels, verses like:-
Matthew{13:55} Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

............ here the sons of a Nazareth dwelling trademan.

But no houses...? No. Of course not. Travelling trades people loved in goat hair tents, similar to those that can be seen today. Pictures below.

So you see, this shortest of verses, a map, some archaeology and a lottle historical research = This part of the story is probably true, not a myth.
The communities around Sepphoros-Zippori

Goat hair tents

A home for travelling artisans

 

[Windwalker]

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

If read critically through the lens of modern scholarship, it give glimpses into the past, when understanding the times from outside the Bible itself, as well as including it to assess what the world was like for those who wrote it. There is a truth behind the stories, but the stories themselves are not the history. They are the stories, which takes history and weaves a story into it, and into itself.

You have to read a little "above the lines" to get together a more reliable or plausible actual history. But the the point of them is not the history itself, but the story, which is the message of the Gospel. They were not written as historians would. That is not their purpose.

 

[Riders]

I don't believe there is any historicity in the new testament but there is good theology.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't believe there is any historicity in the new testament but there is good theology.

Interesting how religious fundamentalists read history into their Bible while others read a theology.

 

[Dawnofhope]

They are not historical documents. They are not intended to depict historical events. They are intended to convey theological ideology. As such, their relation to actual events is not of significant importance.

I thought this was a useful point that has been echoed by several who have contributed to the thread to date. While I completely agree the Gospels have been written from a predominantly theological perspective, it does tell a story that has some connection to reality. It is vitally important that the Christian Faith is based on the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, who was a real person who lived within a particular religious and sociopolitical climate. Jesus was not a mythical character and so His historicity along with some key Biblical events is essential to the Christian Message. That doesn't mean He was necessarily resurrected from the dead (I don't believe He was) but that He was a man who lived who lived by the theology He taught and was prepared to sacrifice His life for what He believed. So when you say "the relation of the Gospel to actual events is not of significant importance", I would disagree strongly.

Thanks for posting.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't believe there is any historicity in the new testament but there is good theology.

Yeah, just as the Arabs say: there never was a place called Israel, and there
never was a people called the Jews.
As for Romans occupying this land - maybe. Like the bible we just have
a few writers making this claim.
And as for the claims of the Old Testament about the Messianic Redeemer,
the one whose birth would be a sign; rejected of his brethren; despised of
his nation; heals the sick; opens the eyes of the blind; raises the dead;
betrayed; unjustly tried; crucified; resurrected and this story told to the
generation of those yet born that he has done this --- nah, wasn't Jesus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We do know that he baptised other Jews, however, who became his devoted disciples and both Mark and Q .. then Q associates Jesus with the Baptist's ministry as well in numerous sayings, making it plausible, in tandem with Mark and Luke's Acts, to view Jesus as having been a "baptised" follower of John the Baptist originally.

Is there not a similarity between this and Bahaiism? Bahaollah taking over the disciples of Bab. Not necessary that Jesus did it. It may have been his followers like Paul.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Speaking of which, did you ever take the time to actually read Powell?

Yes.

What do you think of Mark 10:11-12?

From a scholarly perspective, as with much of what Jesus said we can not verify with any certainty whether or not He said it.

From a faith perspective I believe Jesus probably did say it, but would not view it as a law that is applicable today. There are circumstances when divorce is necessary.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or abortions, or LGBTQ. People now question the whole edifice, God, Allah, soul, angels, satan, faith, miracles, prophecies, prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis. The world is changing so fast that even the 'divine messengers' just about 150 years old (Bahaullah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) have become obsolete. Perhaps time that God / Allah should stop sending messengers and let humanity care for itself. Why does he sends his messengers if all they do is to form new religions and increase the strife?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is there not a similarity between this and Bahaiism? Bahaollah taking over the disciples of Bab. Not necessary that Jesus did it. It may have been his followers like Paul.

Although posted to another, there would be some merit in the similarity.

The verses in Mark 1:1-11 have been discussed already on this thread. While it is accepted John the Baptist, baptising Jesus is an historical fact, what is in dispute are the words:

And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mark 1:7-8

It could logically follow that if John the Baptist was the leader of a movement whose purpose was in part to prepare its members for the coming Messiah. Such a view would be consistent with the Gospel accounts themselves though not explicitly stated. In regards non-Biblical sources and John the Baptist, all we have to go on is Josephus who wrote:

Josephus documents:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's [Antipas's] army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[64]

John the Baptist - Wikipedia

So while it is possible some of the followers of John the Baptist recognized Christ as the Gospels claim John the Baptist did, it is not an historic fact.

OTOH, strong evidence exists that many, if not most of the followers of the Bab subsequently recognised Baha'u'llah and became Bahaí's.