On the Reliability of the Gospels

[Just_A_Guy]

In other discussions here, I have occasionally pointed out that no other ancient texts seem to have their historicity/authenticity questioned the way the Bible does—you don’t see legions of secular scholars arguing that Muhammad wasn’t a real person, for example.

Here’s an article I came across today that makes a similar point in a much more intelligent and engaging way.  

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In other discussions here, I have occasionally pointed out that no other ancient texts seem to have their historicity/authenticity questioned the way the Bible does—you don’t see legions of secular scholars arguing that Muhammad wasn’t a real person, for example.

Here’s an article I came across today that makes a similar point in a much more intelligent and engaging way.  

On the article itself -

The problem you would run into as a Historian is that Plato and Aristotle are not being used to try to establish actual historical events.  They are seen as philosophers rather than a recorded history.  As such you can utilize devices in the writing to find historical relevance, but it does not normally establish historical events. 

When people talk about the bible as a Historical they are normally trying to establish certain things as absolute truths in history.  Rather than seeing the Bible in a similar manner as to what they see as Plato's Republic (and thus ONLY a philosophical item that reflects historical attitudes and sentiment) they see it more like a history book or historical record.  It is a cultural reference that can establish what the culture may have been like, but normally is not used as one to establish historical events on it's own. 

The Bible on the otherhand is used in many instances by Christians as trying to be the sole item to establish historical fact, sometimes against or contrary to various other items that say such facts are impossible to have occurred.

A more relevant comparison would be the records of the Norse Mythology (their religion) is taken FAR less reliably as a historical record than the Bible, and they typically date from a far sooner period in many instances. 

If one is going to compare documents authenticity from a scholarly secular historical point of view, it probably is best to compare like to like documents rather than apples and oranges.

 

I should note, that historians DO use the Bible as a historical document in some cases, but not as much as some Christians would want them to.  In addition, some of the more incredible items (read miracles and supernatural items) are normally taken as literally as they would any other mythological text from a civilization.  This is NOT to say that historians may believe otherwise in regards to FAITH, but there are some standards that are there in order to set what can or cannot be acceptable in regards to historical events as a secular scholarship would demand.

Edited September 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

On the article itself -

The problem you would run into as a Historian is that Plato and Aristotle are not being used to try to establish actual historical events.  They are seen as philosophers rather than a recorded history.  As such you can utilize devices in the writing to find historical relevance, but it does not normally establish historical events. 

When people talk about the bible as a Historical they are normally trying to establish certain things as absolute truths in history.  Rather than seeing the Bible in a similar manner as to what they see as Plato's Republic (and thus ONLY a philosophical item that reflects historical attitudes and sentiment) they see it more like a history book or historical record.

On the otherhand, records of the Norse Mythology (their religion) is taken FAR less reliably as a historical record than the Bible, and they typically date from a far sooner period in many instances. 

If one is going to compare documents authenticity from a scholarly secular historical point of view, it probably is best to compare like to like documents rather than apples and oranges.

I can see where you’re going, in the sense that the Bible’s claims to “absolute truth” and its role as a model for modern life tend to subject it to a higher degree of scrutiny (especially, though certainly not exclusively, by folks who prefer not to live a life governed by its precepts).  

But to suggest that Plato and Aristotle are widely acknowledged to be ahistorical figures—or that scholars spend a lot of time trying to figure out which parts of The Republic might be inauthentic interpolations added by later editors—or that such issues would be brought up in your average survey-level class about the Greek classics—would be a bridge too far for me.  

Edited September 14, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

Look at it more that Plato and Aristotle are Philosophers.  AS such, their books do not establish historical events.  They reflect the culture of their society and societal views. 

We also use the Bible in a similar manner.  Just like Plato and Aristotle we would use the Bible as a book of Philosophy if we want to look at it that way.  Just like Plato and Aristotle it can be a great resource to see the culture and views of the society in which it was written.

In this, historians already use the Bible just like they would with Plato and Aristotle and don't really give it less credence in the areas we can verify.

However, many Christians want to utilize the Bible in a different manner than that.  They want to have it used as a historical record and in this regards, they want it used in a different manner than we use the philosophers in reference to history. 

What the article misleads you on is that historians already use the Bible more in regards to historical EVENTS than most of the writings of ancient philosophy.  It is where we use many of our means to guide archaeologists on their digs for Ancient Israel and the Kingdom of David and Solomon.  in this, many historians would say we already see the Bible as more validated in this regards than Philosophers, so those who claim that we don't are actually either ignorant or deliberately misleading.

However, the bible itself is, from a secular point of view, simply a regions mythology.  As any other mythology you need to separate Fact from fiction, or what can be evidence vs. myth.

As such, things such as the Book of Genesis where there is really no evidence to show it, and physical evidence seems to indicate it did not happen, are seen more as fictional myth from a secular point of view.  As such, we could technically prove that parts of the Bible are false and only myths due to evidence we have that show a contrary record (the most common normally tossed about is that there is no evidence from an archeological, geological, or any other scientific measure of a recent world wide flood).

Christians many times feel that this means historians are automatically dismissing the Bible and do not see it as authentic or reliable.  Once again, this is misleading.  If scientific records indicate something from Plato or Aristotle as being implausible, that too would be tossed out.  However, much of the writings we DO use don't try to establish a historical record, and instead are things that reflect their societies views and culture.

We have many figures we view as authentic in the Bible as they are referred to in other sources.  People such as David and Solomon and other Kings of Israel and Judah.  Ideas in relation to the Babylonians and other items, and ideas in regards to how the Church of Jerusalem worked in the Roman period and how certain things were situated are ALL things we look at historically.

One other thing to realize on WHY the Bible is not given as much significance as some of the other writings is that the Bible actually only deals with a VERY SMALL part of the world.  It simply isn't as important, historically speaking, as things that deal with areas that had a greater impact during their time period (For example, the Greeks or the Romans).  Even most Christians in the US devalue parts of the Bible more than the Philosophers, and at times they devalue parts of the Bible even MORE than historians (for example Maccabees is great for a historian but very few Christians even have it in their Bible much less read it).

[Guest]

On 9/13/2018 at 7:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In other discussions here, I have occasionally pointed out that no other ancient texts seem to have their historicity/authenticity questioned the way the Bible does

Book of Mormon.

Pearl of Great Price

Doctrine & Covenants

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Book of Mormon.

Pearl of Great Price

Doctrine & Covenants

Point taken!

[zil]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Point taken!

Thief!  @Carborendum makes a good point and you just waltz in and take it!?  Shame on you!

[Sunday21]

On 9/13/2018 at 8:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In other discussions here, I have occasionally pointed out that no other ancient texts seem to have their historicity/authenticity questioned the way the Bible does—you don’t see legions of secular scholars arguing that Muhammad wasn’t a real person, for example.

Here’s an article I came across today that makes a similar point in a much more intelligent and engaging way.  

 

 

On 9/13/2018 at 8:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Homer What about the IIliad and the Odessey? Lots of ink spilled over the historical accuracy of these.  

Edited September 15, 2018 by Sunday21

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Homer What about the IIliad and the Odessey? Lots of ink spilled over the historical accuracy of these.  

It's widely believed that "Homer" was more than one person. 

[zil]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's widely believed that "Homer" was more than one person. 

Ah yes, an early case of dissociative identity disorder.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Ah yes, an early case of dissociative identity disorder.

Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

That must be where Shakespeare got the idea.

[classylady]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

Wow! The best history lesson I’ve ever read!  Lol

[Traveler]

I would add a few ideas to @JohnsonJones excellent remarks. Before I include my remarks - I want it clearly understood that I have a clear understanding of Jesus as the Christ - that he did live and suffer at Gethsemane and did die on the cross to complete his mission to redeem mankind.  At the same time I also realize that it is not uncommon in history that details of important individuals be embellished - sometimes beyond actual facts and events as they occurred in history.   The 4 Gospels of the New Testament were written to express the divine person and mission of Jesus.  I can understand that some events may not be 100% historically accurate.  If it turns out to be the case - such inaccuracies will not diminish my covenants and assurances that Jesus fulfilled his divine destiny to save mankind from the grave.

I will highlight a problem that has arisen concerning the historical accuracy of some of the events written of in the New Testaments Gospels.  There are other characters that are associated with mythology that predate New Testament historical time.  The mythology of such characters makes claim that they performed some of the miracles that are written of Jesus - specifically intended to demonstrate his divine nature as a Son of G-d.   I will give one such example - not to create any disbelief but to highlight why some scholarly experts doubt as actual historical events concerning Jesus.  Anciently there arose what we call a Pagan religion surrounding a particular demigod (Half man half G-d - of a mortal woman and the G-d or creation) named Baal.  There is little doubt that the worship of Baal was historical dating back at least 2,000 years before Jesus.  According to the myth of Baal - he walked on water in a very similar manner as Jesus.  Baal also calmed the weather to save a boat from being taken by a storm - very similar to what is claimed of Jesus.

Some very prominent Christian scholars and experts in ancient literature have express the possibility that such stories of Jesus may be more myth than actual history.  I have learned that attempting to argue such points to be little value.  I do not want to live and die on if Jesus walking on water and calming the seas is historic.  I have a hard time convincing my self that such events are critical to a testimony of Jesus the Christ - savior of mankind.   My point - and I believe this to be paramount - even if some well meaning scribe or disciple embellished details of  Jesus in an effort to convince those of their generation that thought such things important - my witness is not dependent on scripture nor the historical accuracy of every little detail recorded in scripture.  My covenant and resolve in Jesus being the Christ is not dependent on if every detail of Jesus recorded in the New Testament text is 100% accurate or not.  

I am not saying that everything is or is not accurate in the New Testament - I am saying that there is mythology that claims that such events preceded Jesus - and I can understand why some have come to doubt historical authenticity of every detail.  Those unwilling to recognize such things in mythology before Jesus come across as ignorant and prejudice to experts historians.  And I am also aware that when some discover that stories are not quite as unique to Jesus as claimed - it only causes doubt that any of the story of Jesus is actual and historic and that is a fatal mistake and stumbling block in bringing back to the fold some that have become confused and lost their way to becoming a covenant disciple of Jesus.

I would also add that it does not help much when some covenant believers in Jesus claims that any disbelief of scripture is heresy and relegates all such to everlasting Hell.  

 

The Traveler

Edited September 19, 2018 by Traveler