How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[lukethethird]

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It amazes me, how intellectuals spin themselves in to mists of complexity, when in fact the historical content of reports about the Baptist are so simple.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.

Sometimes the covers and the front and back pages can be lost or damaged on ancient books which could explain the variable first verse from early copies of Mark if memory serves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bahaollah excommunicated all the rest.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Now folks, please ask yourself seriously - if it weren't for your pre-existing religious convictions, if this story had different characters and you read it some other book of some other culture/religion - would you really take this story seriously as any kind of accurate historical record? It is completely historically implausible, start to finish. Where is the history here, and how would you ever disaggregate it from the mythology?

Thanks for dropping by @Left Coast

There are two too many 'ifs' written above. I'm not asking anyone to consider the Gospel accounts from a "what if" perspective but rather to consider them from the perspective of actual history. The Gospel accounts were most likely written within 35 - 80 years after the events that are central to their narrative. Do you believe Jesus and John the Baptist were completely mythical characters? If so how do you account for corroborative and contemporary accounts such as Josephus as well as the NT accounts themselves? If you see Jesus was historic, how aware are you of the Biblical studies since the enlightenment period that seeks to establish the historical Jesus. I know you are a knowledgeable and smart guy and presume you have some familiarity with these discussions.

The problem for me about "What if" is the question creates a world that doesn't exist and is not real. Christianity has had enormous influence in shaping Western civilization. It continues to exert a strong influence in both our countries. I freely acknowledge mythical aspects in the Biblical portions you have quoted. I don't believe in Satan, demons or exorcisms. However biographies of this era also contained mythical elements. Several contributors to this thread have rightfully emphasized the importance of the Gospels in creating a theological rather than an historic one.

Of the historical Jesus, most scholars would agree He was an itinerant Jewish preacher who was baptized and crucified. However there are scholars such as Carrier who deny any historicity to Jesus as all. Where do you stand?

Thanks again for your post.

 

[oldbadger]

Sometimes the covers and the front and back pages can be lost or damaged on ancient books which could explain the variable first verse from early copies of Mark if memory serves.

If that is the case, how come that Christian bible translations such as the NIV, used in the local Baptist Church here, go out of their way to point out that 4 of the 12 words in the first verse of G-Mark were added after the earliest copies.

That's not mythers trying to tell us about that..... that's Christians who might prefer not to have to admit that fact.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Lol. Honestly this makes one think you have a serious agenda against the Bahaiis or Bahaism which is why every single opportunity in an irrelevant thread you are trying your best to bring it into the equation. I find it curious matter.

 

[lukethethird]

If that is the case, how come that Christian bible translations such as the NIV, used in the local Baptist Church here, go out of their way to point out that 4 of the 12 words in the first verse of G-Mark were added after the earliest copies.

That's not mythers trying to tell us about that..... that's Christians who might prefer not to have to admit that fact.

Some of the earliest copies may not have had those words due to wear or damage. Some of the later versions were copies of earlier copies that did have the words but were since lost. In other words, there might be a perfectly natural explanation for why those four words are not in some of the earliest copies, no tampering necessary.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lol. Honestly this makes one think you have a serious agenda against the Bahaiis or Bahaism which is why every single opportunity in an irrelevant thread you are trying your best to bring it into the equation. I find it curious matter.

No really. It is a question of history. I see similarities, and even Adrian does. He said, "Although posted to another, there would be some merit in the similarity."

Or perhaps that is how Abrahamic religions work. Each new exponent, takes strength from the others preceeding him but in the end rejecting them for his own importance.

 

[oldbadger]

Some of the earliest copies may not have had those words due to wear or damage. Some of the later versions were copies of earlier copies that did have the words but were since lost. In other words, there might be a perfectly natural explanation for why those four words are not in some of the earliest copies, no tampering necessary.

There you go......
Your May not and your Might not answer your own point.

I just love it when folks who want to trash the NT stories as fantasy become so determined to fit additions in to the gospels that even Christians admit did not exist initially.

You'll be trying to find ways to prove that the last verses of G-Mark (all after the empty tomb scene) were original as well.

 

[oldbadger]

How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

There are hundreds of phrases, sentences and verses in the NT which can support (and/or be supported by) other documents of those times or soon afterwards.

Sometimes these don't particularly help HJ studies, but they can help to show that focusing very closely upon detail can establish strong proposals, based upon the balance of probabilities.

This entry as shown is interesting because there are only two or three persons known and written down as JUDAS in the whole bible.

It also provides evidence that the first Prefect to Idumea, Judea and Samaria messed up in his attempts to introduce a taxation census and that the Syrian Legate had to step in and conduct a further, 2nd attempt at the census. Since this was all happening at about the time of Jesus's birth it might interest some readers, but it shows historical accuracy where so many mythers just keep shouting that the whole book is myth.

Here we go......

New Testament entry:
ACTS {5:37} After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

Judas the Galilean (6 CE)
Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.433 and Jewish Antiquities 18.1-10 and 18.23; Acts of the apostles 5.37.
Story: The Jewish king Herod Archelaus was an incapable ruler, and the Roman authorities decided to dispose him in 6 CE. His realm, Judea, Samaria and Idumea, was annexed as the province Judaea. The new governor, a man named Coponius, tried to establish new taxes, but a large rebellion was the only result. Its leader was Judas the Galilean, and when the high priest Joazar had shown himself incapable of overcoming the rebellion, the governor of adjacent Syria interfered and conducted the census. This was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, well known from the census mentioned in the
Gospel of Luke (2.2).

Flavius Josephus:- There was one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt. Both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.4-6]

 

[Dawnofhope]

The four gospels all contain high value info about Jesus and his mission. Many details are unhelpful to the Christian cause but offer value to the student of HJ.

Example of an item (out of hundreds!) unhelpful for Christians but helpful value for history...?

John {6:71} He spake of Judas Iscariot [the
son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

This apparently unimportant sentence adds to the info about Judas, and with other bible verses, plus info in Origen's letter (against Celcus) helps us to build up a formal name for Judas, discover the reason for his nickname and to decide whether he might have been a Levite (!!) or a peasant, which alters his formal name somewhat, and helps to suggest two of his previous employments.
in the gospels mean so much more to students of history, and there are hundreds and hundreds of these.

Most valuable....... and no agenda for them to be lies.
Thus it can be seen that innocuous and harmless verses add to HJ studies.

You are no doubt familiar with the Rorschach Test.

Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning.

Rorschach test - Wikipedia

Basically its about how we each project our perceptions and biases onto an image. Same deal with the historical Jesus. Those who are atheists either deny Jesus existed at all or portray Jesus as a flawed human being. Conservative Christians have a Jesus that aligns with their beliefs and values. Conservative Muslims appear interested in scholarship to discredit the authenticity of Gospel accounts as it contradicts the ‘Muslim’ Jesus. Baha’is have a Biblical Jesus who wasn’t literally resurrected. It is not surprising most of us approach the subject wanting to substantiate our worldviews.

So while we have quite different views of Jesus I appreciate you see some value in the Gospel accounts.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This thread is not about the Baha’i Faith or its Writings.



The Gospel narrative is certainly challenging. In my experience as a Christian, agnostic, atheist and Baha’i is the necessity of finding a meaningful narrative that resonates. Do you feel you have that covered?

In terms of basic narrative, yes. I do see the first three gospels as books with different intents though. So they have different agendas. But the reach the same conclusions.

 

[firedragon]

Folks. Let's crack open a Bible and read the first chapter of the first Gospel, Mark:

"The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” And immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him.

They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.

As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once. He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.

That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered around the door. And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed. And Simon and his companions hunted for him. When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.” He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.

A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."


Now folks, please ask yourself seriously - if it weren't for your pre-existing religious convictions, if this story had different characters and you read it some other book of some other culture/religion - would you really take this story seriously as any kind of accurate historical record? It is completely historically implausible, start to finish. Where is the history here, and how would you ever disaggregate it from the mythology?

Scholars are divided on Mark 1:1. It's a textual variant. Some of the most prominent early manuscripts don't have the "son of God" part in it. Its a strange discussion whether it was added by someone deliberately or if someone deleted it deliberately. Both seem like a strange action. Thus, some of the Bible translations omitted that part. It ends with "Jesus the Christ" or "Jesus the Messiah" or whatever they wish to state. I think even in the TNIV its removed.

This is a well known variant.

That being said, your method is absolutely questionable. Saying "if it weren't for your pre-existing religious convictions" is mirrored back at you with a "if it weren't for your pre-existing anti-religious convictions".

Argument from incredulity.

 

[lukethethird]

There you go......
Your May not and your Might not answer your own point.

I just love it when folks who want to trash the NT stories as fantasy become so determined to fit additions in to the gospels that even Christians admit did not exist initially.

You'll be trying to find ways to prove that the last verses of G-Mark (all after the empty tomb scene) were original as well.

I suppose one could consider fantasy to be trash if one has an agenda and wants to set out to prove something. Personally, I don't see a problem with the way the gospels tell of one impossible miracle after another or that it follows a storied plot line, but then again, I'm not attempting to read history into it.

No one is trying to fit in additions to the gospels, just pointing out one of many possibilities for variances in early copies that are otherwise well known. Maybe you think there was a point being made because you are so hung up on so called mythers.

 

[firedragon]

In terms of basic narrative, yes. I do see the first three gospels as books with different intents though. So they have different agendas. But the reach the same conclusions.

I don't think its that black and white. Even within the Synoptics the evolution in Christology is pretty much evident.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sure. Take each gospel, list down all the sayings attributed to Jesus. Cut and paste it into one document. Then list down statements made by the author.

So what did you learn?

 

[firedragon]

No really. It is a question of history. I see similarities, and even Adrian does. He said, "Although posted to another, there would be some merit in the similarity."

Or perhaps that is how Abrahamic religions work. Each new exponent, takes strength from the others preceeding him but in the end rejecting them for his own importance.

You are just making general comments bro. Its not valid. I think relevance is down the drain anyway because this is an insistence to be irrelevant.

Anyway, lets just take the Qur'an for example. There is no indication of Muhammed being aiming at becoming more important. He is one of the least mentioned characters in it, and the book claims that there is no distinction between messengers whatsoever. You are making assumptions.

 

[firedragon]

So what did you learn?

Cmon mate. Please do it yourself. Its just a simple study every one does for themselves. You will have many things to take from it. If I share my opinion its just my opinion. I don't know if anyone wrote conclusions about this extensively but many many scholars have made remarks based on this exercise. Its not big deal.

 

[oldbadger]

You are no doubt familiar with the Rorschach Test.

Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning.

Rorschach test - Wikipedia

Have you taken the test?
What were the results and what do you think of it yourself?

Basically its about how we each project our perceptions and biases onto an image. Same deal with the historical Jesus. Those who are atheists either deny Jesus existed at all or portray Jesus as a flawed human being.

Ah ha! Can I stop you there?
After breakfast (that's now...... sensible time here!) I'll show you how a total enemy of Jesus helped to build a whole new picture of the disciples, who they were , etc.........

The investigate researcher of HJ doesn't give a hoot for what might be found........ whether Jesus was God or whether Jesus had been running a massage parlour in Capernaun ......... true HJ students don't seek to fit the findings in to their agendas. Their agenda is simply to find as much as possible.

Maybe that's why a Deist like me can just go about the research without any fears or worries at all.

Conservative Christians have a Jesus that aligns with their beliefs and values.

YES!"

Conservative Muslims appear interested in scholarship to discredit the authenticity of Gospel accounts as it contradicts the ‘Muslim’ Jesus.

And there's you and your agenda, eh?
Why didn't you just write that Muslims seek to uphold their own Koran accounts...... but you didn't.

Baha’is have a Biblical Jesus who wasn’t literally resurrected. It is not surprising most of us approach the subject wanting to substantiate our worldviews.

How you or yours try to make your religions reverse in to another is of no concern of mine.

So while we have quite different views of Jesus I appreciate you see some value in the Gospel accounts.

I wouldn't scrutinize the NT accounts if I didn't think they are valuable.

But if you think I have an agenda you're so wrong. You remind me of the days when I had to trace people for Courts and serve papers. When I served Probate docs to heirs they thought I was a wonderful man at heart. When I served Court Orders they knew I was a wicked evil man at heart!

I got over agendas a long time ago.

I will look up your test, but I must post up that account by a Christian enemy after breky.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Dawnofhope]

It doesn't really. What you have said here is that there are problems with the synoptic problem.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there are different and contradictory approaches to the synoptic problem. The majority view (Marcan priority and Q-source) is also my preferred approach. It acknowledges the common material between the synoptic Gospels. It identifies the most likely starting point. It allows for the existence of materials that may have existed but is now extant. It provides the flexibility for each Gospel writer to have introduced their unique contribution from whatever source (eg oral traditions, other written sources or even being a first hand eye witness.

Well, I have said many many times in this thread that there are problems with all of the standards. All of it. But that does not mean there is no consensus. I think you should not use that kind of sentence which are fleeting statements and rather make specific statements of what you mean to say.

Perhaps I could have expressed the point better. There are clearly different approaches to the synoptic problem.

So what is your preferred approach and why? What is the problem with your preferred approach?

So what do you mean to say? Are you stating that all three gospels are completely cloven, individual writings of people who never used a common source? If that's what you are saying, that's fine. But say it straight bro. Its all good. There are many scholars who say the same thing, and that idea of QLM being hypothesis is absolutely correct. It is a hypothesis and everyone accepts it. Even the scholars who teach it accept it. Also, if you are saying its absolutely false, well that is also an answer for another set of questions not answered by the two source theory, and many other common source theories. Again, these are constructs for curriculum. Thus, rather than saying things like there is no consensus, please state your view directly brother man.

Are we better understanding each other now?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't think its that black and white. Even within the Synoptics the evolution in Christology is pretty much evident.

By basic narrative I mean Jesus being born, healing, doing his ministry, dying etc.

There is basic christology which is obvious, such as Jesus being the Messiah. The exact relationship between Jesus and God is not the basic narrative and doesn't seem to be the main focus. John is the gospel that focuses on that.