Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[widdershins]

It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.

So, what?  This makes them true?  I do love the old "what is not proves what is" argument.  Please, do go on.

[Baruch]

It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.

The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point.  These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described.  The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one.  Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.

[Mike Cl]

It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.

That is an interesting take.  We do not know who wrote any of the gospels.  So, how do we know how they profited or not?  Nor do we know when they were written.  Who is to say that the original writers had one thing in mind, but the later users and compilers of the NT had another thing in mind.  We don't know.  But we do know that what was included in that group of essays, called the bible,  was compiled from a much larger body of works.  Why did they keep some of it and discard others?  And there isn't just one 'Bible'--there are many.  And there isn't just one copy of the gospels, but many that do not agree one with the other.  I find god's methods to be quite shoddy in this prolonged effort to give us 'the word'. 

[Hijiri Byakuren]

It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.

Appeals to emotion are not evidence of correctness.

[LittleNipper]

The Gospels weren't penned by either Jesus or by the Disciples, or they would have made themselves look better ... good point.  These were written by third parties, literate people, not peasants, writing a burlesque of Jewish messianism (usually violent and not-Hellenistic) .. up to 100 years after the events described.  The genuine writings of Paul are contemporary (pre-70 CE) ... and his writings don't speak of a physical Jesus, but a metaphysical one.  Paul never got to put his finger in Jesus' side, unlike Thomas.

Jesus the Christ/Messiah was crucified about 30 -33 AD. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before A.D. 70. Basically, the Book of Acts was written by Luke. Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He also  fails to mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written at some later date. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the Gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the Gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2, Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before A.D. 70.

The Gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. There is every indication that even Revelations was written about 95 AD. That (the last book of the New Testament) would then be only a mere 60 years removed from when Jesus hung on the cross. And yet within the lifetime of some contemporaries of Jesus the Christ/Messiah or those who knew those who were.

[Baruch]

Theological scholars have made those estimated dates.  Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE.  Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.

[LittleNipper]

Theological scholars have made those estimated dates.  Actual physical copies that are near complete, only date from around 200 CE.  Theologians have a vested interest in using the earliest estimated dates possible.

The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before A.D. 70

The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.

Seems legit.

[LittleNipper]

So, New Testament aside, How old is the oldest copy of the Old Testament? Much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts that were written 100's of years after the fact. Many are copies of copies. And yet who denies that the Trojan War never happened?

[LittleNipper]

Seems legit.

Yet this small fragment was found in Egypt and would have likely taken years to arrive at that local.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Yet this small fragment was found in Egypt and would have likely taken years to arrive at that local.

I don't think you understand how radiometric dating works.

[LittleNipper]

I don't think you understand how radiometric dating works.

I don't think you understand dispersal --- the spreading of materials and knowledge --- especially in ancient times.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I don't think you understand dispersal --- the spreading of materials and knowledge --- especially in ancient times.

Oh I do, I really do. Better than you understand the very dating methods you're citing as evidence for your case, at the least.

[widdershins]

So, New Testament aside, How old is the oldest copy of the Old Testament? Much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts that were written 100's of years after the fact. Many are copies of copies. And yet who denies that the Trojan War never happened?

You are bordering on a lie right there with the deception you're throwing.  Yes, much of what we hold as historical fact is found in manuscripts which were written hundreds of years after the fact, but those manuscripts, alone, are not the totality of the evidence to support the historical account, as you are slyly trying to suggest.  We do not simply find a manuscript where some guy claims something happened 200 years before and say, "Wow.  So, THAT happened.  Let's put it into the history books."  I know it would be very convenient for you if we did, but that is not how it works, because SCIENCE!

In fact, taking your own example, much of what YOU know about the Trojan War is undoubtedly made up and very much NOT taken as historical fact.  Homer's Iliad is not considered a "historical document".  It's a poem.  The characters in it, though depicted in movies as historical fact, are, by historians, considered likely fictional characters.  We don't know that Helen of Troy was a real person.  But we do know there was a Trojan War, not because Homer spoke of it in a poem, but because the site has been excavated.  It's one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world.  Historians look at all these old documents, but take nothing from them as "fact" until they can match up sites and artifacts with depictions in the manuscripts, or at least with multiple other corroborating accounts.  In this case all the Iliad tells us is that people at the time "knew" of a great war which had taken place at a place called both Troy and Ilium.  The writing style suggests the writer expected his audience to have some knowledge of the war he was writing about beforehand.  This tells historians, not that the war happened, but that it was a common belief at the time.

So, what we have is a "claim".  Historians then go out to gather the "facts", the part you don't want to do because they might not (or outright don't) support your beliefs.  The reason we know the Trojan War happened is because there is evidence to back it up, not simply because some guy claimed it hundreds of years after the fact.  Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse, those are not historical facts because there is no evidence for them.  Yes, the Trojan War is "found" in a manuscript hundreds of years after the fact, but that manuscript is not considered even close to a historical account of the war.  All it tells historians about the war is how people at the time viewed it all that time later.  Nothing more.

[Baruch]

The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.

You cannot infer, from one little fragment, the entire NT as available in 125 CE.  That date is a "range" it is more like 125 - 175 CE ... with the theologians naturally taking the bottom number.  You cannot even infer a whole book of the NT from one little fragment.  You have to have substantial copies to date the work, not a fragment that might have been part of a pre-NT work, that was subsequently copied into a NT work.  The substantial copies date from 175 - 225 CE.  The earliest surviving whole Christian bible dates from around 400 CE (OT + NT) and there are revisions directly in the body of that work ... and there is a fair amount of that one missing too.