Gospel Reliability

[031064]

I am thinking a lot about how reliable the gospels are lately especially because I’m taking a course at school that challenges the sources of the gospels. Even just approaching this from a really basic perspective – if you were writing the history books on World War II how reliable would they be? (It is projected that the gospel of Mark- the first gospel- was written after the destruction of the temple).

Let’s just make play and pretend the gospels where strictly historical – would you trust a WWII book that was written now (even if it was written from people who were first-hand witnesses)?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Typically skeptics who appeal to the years between the Resurrection and writing of the Gospels do not hold other historical events to the same criteria. If I wrote an account of something that happened to me 20 years ago, they would have to doubt the story, even if 3 others described the story similarly.

 

[puzzleannie]

why don’t you do some research into extant manuscripts and copies or reproductions of 1st c. BC & AD sources in general–Roman, Greek, and so forth. Find out the principle sources we have for knowledge of known historical figures such as, Julius Caesar, Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, and so forth? Put your consideration of the NT (the epistles probably pre-date the written gospels) as primary sources in the context of reliabilty and documentation of other primary source material from that era.

 

[Bookcat]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

 

[hatsoff]

I am thinking a lot about how reliable the gospels are lately especially because I’m taking a course at school that challenges the sources of the gospels. Even just approaching this from a really basic perspective – if you were writing the history books on World War II how reliable would they be? (It is projected that the gospel of Mark- the first gospel- was written after the destruction of the temple).

Let’s just make play and pretend the gospels where strictly historical – would you trust a WWII book that was written now (even if it was written from people who were first-hand witnesses)?

Compared to modern history, ancient history is an entirely different animal. We’re basically forced into trusting ancient sources more than we’d like, because they are much fewer and further between than sources for modern events. Take the life and death of Jesus, for example. We have no execution records, no contemporary point-counterpoint, no official Roman correspondence discussing his deeds. All we have are Christian documents, which were obviously written for the express purpose of evangelism. In other words, they tell only one side of the story, and with great bias.

But that’s often what we have to cope with in ancient history. We would very much value, for instance, a Persian account of the expedition of Cyrus the younger. But all we have are Greek accounts. Was Artaxerxes II really so inept? Was Tissaphernes so dishonest? Xenophon thought so—but, then, Xenophon was a Greek, and had motive to embellish the account of his daring escape from Persian hands. Or was it really so daring? Was it just self-aggrandizement? A Persian source would help a great deal, but none is forthcoming.

So we do what we can. We accept biased reports tenuously—but we accept them nonetheless.

Bias isn’t the only problem, either. The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, but nth-hand reporters. Perhaps the telephone game is not an apt analogy, but the underlying principle is worth remembering: Each time a story is passed on, it becomes diluted, and is subject to some degree of corruption. And that’s assuming the eyewitness versions were accurate to begin with! People often misinterpret what they see and experience. The original witnesses to the reports handed down through the Gospels may have remembered wrongly and/or articulated those memories poorly. Without the ability to interactively probe the witnesses, we’re stuck. We can either trust them to some degree or another, in which case we risk accepting falsehoods, or we can reject them altogether, in which case we don’t get to reconstruct interesting history.

So, are the Gospels reliable? Well, that depends on your perspective. As a historian, it’s out of the question to treat the supernatural elements of the Gospels as accurate. Verifying miracle claims is a task which lies outside the purview of the history. As a Christian, then you are welcome to treat the Gospels as your doctrines demand. Personally, though, I wouldn’t recommend taking them too seriously.

 

[Mark77]

Compared to modern history, ancient history is an entirely different animal. We’re basically forced into trusting ancient sources more than we’d like, because they are much fewer and further between than sources for modern events. Take the life and death of Jesus, for example. We have no execution records, no contemporary point-counterpoint, no official Roman correspondence discussing his deeds. All we have are Christian documents, which were obviously written for the express purpose of evangelism. In other words, they tell only one side of the story, and with great bias.

But that’s often what we have to cope with in ancient history. We would very much value, for instance, a Persian account of the expedition of Cyrus the younger. But all we have are Greek accounts. Was Artaxerxes II really so inept? Was Tissaphernes so dishonest? Xenophon thought so—but, then, Xenophon was a Greek, and had motive to embellish the account of his daring escape from Persian hands. Or was it really so daring? Was it just self-aggrandizement? A Persian source would help a great deal, but none is forthcoming.

So we do what we can. We accept biased reports tenuously—but we accept them nonetheless.

Bias isn’t the only problem, either. The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, but nth-hand reporters. Perhaps the telephone game is not an apt analogy, but the underlying principle is worth remembering: Each time a story is passed on, it becomes diluted, and is subject to some degree of corruption. And that’s assuming the eyewitness versions were accurate to begin with! People often misinterpret what they see and experience. The original witnesses to the reports handed down through the Gospels may have remembered wrongly and/or articulated those memories poorly. Without the ability to interactively probe the witnesses, we’re stuck. We can either trust them to some degree or another, in which case we risk accepting falsehoods, or we can reject them altogether, in which case we don’t get to reconstruct interesting history.

So, are the Gospels reliable? Well, that depends on your perspective. As a historian, it’s out of the question to treat the supernatural elements of the Gospels as accurate. Verifying miracle claims is a task which lies outside the purview of the history. As a Christian, then you are welcome to treat the Gospels as your doctrines demand. Personally, though, I wouldn’t recommend taking them too seriously.

You wrote :" **All we have are Christian documents, which were obviously written for the express purpose of evangelism."
**
**That is false, the usual false argument put forward by non believers.
**
**Jewish historian, Flavius Joseph (37-95 AD) wrote about Jesus condemned to die by Pilate.

Roman historians Tactus and Pliny also recorded Jesus’ life and death at the hands of Pilate.**

**Regarding the time between actual events & written documents, Scholars all over the world accept writings like Homer’s Illiad, written in 800BC with the oldest existing manuscripts dating from 200 AD, a gap of over 1000 years. There are only 65 manuscripts, yet no scholar ever questions the authenticity of the Illiad.

The New Testament was written from 50 to 110AD, with existing manuscripts or partial manuscripts dating from before 400 AD (scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy…nuscripts.html), no where near 1000 year gap of the Illiad. There are over 5700 documented NT manuscripts or partial manuscripts existing today, which have been scrutinized by Clerics & academic scholars for nearly 2000 years, yet the manuscripts match 99.5%.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls, a recent discovery written in Hebrew, also match over 99%.**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[hatsoff]

You wrote :“All we have are Christian documents, which were obviously written for the express purpose of evangelism.”

That is false, the usual false argument put forward by non believers.

Jewish historian, Flavius Joseph (37-95 AD) wrote about Jesus condemned to die by Pilate.

Roman historians Tactus and Pliny also recorded Jesus’ life and death at the hands of Pilate.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, here. Are you suggesting that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not evangelists? If so, then what do Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny have to do with that? More importantly, how can you ignore the context of their writings? Consider the words of Irenaeus:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. …after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

– 3.1.1Against Heresies​

Irenaeus was not alone. Origen reports that Mark’s Gospel was a written form of Peter’s preaching:

As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

– 6.14.6Ecc. His.​

Looking to internal evidence is even more telling. Luke himself claims to be writing to strengthen the faith of “Theophilus” (Lk 1:1-4). The final editor of the fourth Gospel insists that we believe its message, writing of his work that it comes from a “disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (Jn 21:24). Matthew and John are both peppered with arguments from prophecy (e.g. Mt 1:22,2:15,4:14,8:17, Jn 12:38,18:9,32,19:24,28, etc.). Of the four, only Mark’s Gospel has any semblance of objectivity, and even it suffers from clear internal signs of bias, for example the incorporation into his crucifixion account of prophetic material from Psalm 22, presumably for the same purpose which Matthew and John made explicit—to show that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Regarding the time between actual events & written documents, Scholars all over the world accept writings like Homer’s Illiad, written in 800BC with the oldest existing manuscripts dating from 200 AD, a gap of over 1000 years. There are only 65 manuscripts, yet no scholar ever questions the authenticity of the Illiad.

The New Testament was written from 50 to 110AD, with existing manuscripts or partial manuscripts dating from before 400 AD (scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy…nuscripts.html), no where near 1000 year gap of the Illiad. There are over 5700 documented NT manuscripts or partial manuscripts existing today, which have been scrutinized by Clerics & academic scholars for nearly 2000 years, yet the manuscripts match 99.5%.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls, a recent discovery written in Hebrew, also match over 99%.

Is this addressed to me, or intended as a response to my post? I didn’t discuss textual transmission. That’s a separate issue.

 

[Uranage]

If a historian from 2010 was putting together a work about WW2 one of the first things that he would do would be to get in touch with as many eyewitnesses as he can and speak with them directly. Remember, without the first hand testimony from Holocost survivors, we would not know much of what actually went on in those camps. If you can, I would check out Richard Bauckham’s recent volume “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. It goes into great depth about the degree to which eyewitness testimony helped to shape the canonical gospels. Here are two other links that you may find helpful:

4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2903871/k.1218/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm

tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

 

[puzzleannie]

Bias isn’t the only problem, either. The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, but nth-hand reporters. Perhaps the telephone game is not an apt analogy, but the underlying principle is worth remembering: Each time a story is passed on, it becomes diluted, and is subject to some degree of corruption. And that’s assuming the eyewitness versions were accurate to begin with! People often .

this actual happens very little in societies who transmit their history and tradition orally, and the Jews have a parallel oral tradition that exists side by side with the written scripture throughout their history, into the modern day. comparison of early manuscripts that do exist, and there are more than you think, reveal very few errors of transmission and copying. More copyist errors crept in once sacred writ began to be translated in to Latin and other ancient languages. But extant early mss show remarkable correlation and the diffrence that do arise are accounted for and documented (which is why bibles have study notes in the same volume or a commentary).

the New Testament has an advantage not enjoyed by other first century primary sources, in that it was handed on orally and eventually transcribed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit so it is free from error. that is not going to sway a historian, but he serious historian would already be aware that most of what we think we know about first century Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Britons, Celts etc. is from fragments that preserve only a small percentage of written records that were produced in that period, and that most of those are reconstructed or redacted from later copies or transcriptions of those records.

Luke’s gospel and Acts begin with the assurance that the author has done what any narrator would do in the generation after the events being recounted, locate and interview all available eyewitnesses, to the extent of travelling widely to find those witnesses, and to review all earlier written accounts. He would do well in my MA history course.

 

[hatsoff]

this actual happens very little in societies who transmit their history and tradition orally,

I’ve never seen any evidence for this. I think it’s fairly obvious that oral transmission suffers from consistency issues, regardless of cultural values.

and the Jews have a parallel oral tradition that exists side by side with the written scripture throughout their history, into the modern day. comparison of early manuscripts that do exist, and there are more than you think, reveal very few errors of transmission and copying. More copyist errors crept in once sacred writ began to be translated in to Latin and other ancient languages. But extant early mss show remarkable correlation and the diffrence that do arise are accounted for and documented (which is why bibles have study notes in the same volume or a commentary).

I have no serious problems with the textual transmission of the NT.

the New Testament has an advantage not enjoyed by other first century primary sources, in that it was handed on orally and eventually transcribed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit so it is free from error. that is not going to sway a historian, but he serious historian would already be aware that most of what we think we know about first century Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Britons, Celts etc. is from fragments that preserve only a small percentage of written records that were produced in that period, and that most of those are reconstructed or redacted from later copies or transcriptions of those records.

As you say, this is not going to matter to an historian, regardless of the condition of sources for other historical settings.

Luke’s gospel and Acts begin with the assurance that the author has done what any narrator would do in the generation after the events being recounted, locate and interview all available eyewitnesses, to the extent of travelling widely to find those witnesses, and to review all earlier written accounts. He would do well in my MA history course.

That’s an apologetic interpretation, not what Luke actually says. Allow me to quote his introduction, from Lk 1 (ESV):

01 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 02 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 03 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 04 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

As you can see, Luke says nothing about interviews. He never tells us that he located or visited anyone in order to learn more. And while it’s quite clear from Synoptic comparisons that he used multiple written sources, he gives no indication at all that he was concerned with reviewing more texts than what he evidently used, much less tracking down all written sources. In fact, all he tells us about his preparation and intent is what I have quoted above.

To summarize in modern English, he knew that multiple Gospels had already been written; he believed that those Gospels were based on accounts handed down from eyewitnesses; and he intended his own Gospel to strengthen the confidence of his audience in his version of the Gospel. Now, that’s all well and good, but it’s nothing like what modern historians must do.

 

[requieroveritas]

I am thinking a lot about how reliable the gospels are lately especially because I’m taking a course at school that challenges the sources of the gospels. Even just approaching this from a really basic perspective – if you were writing the history books on World War II how reliable would they be? (It is projected that the gospel of Mark- the first gospel- was written after the destruction of the temple).

Let’s just make play and pretend the gospels where strictly historical – would you trust a WWII book that was written now (even if it was written from people who were first-hand witnesses)?

You confuse the work of men with the work of God. If you believe that the Gospels, etc, come from God, that is, written by men, but with Divine influence and guardianship, then there is no reason to question the wisdom contained in them. Unfortunately, there was no TV, no internet, no reporters on the scene, giving a minute by minute account of Christ’s life, with news anchors to provide commentary. The Gospels are not intended to be a day by day historical account of Jesus’ life, only to provide His word to mankind.

If you believe that the gospels are written with Divine oversight, then you will believe the wisdom they contain. If, not, then they are just so much history, open to suspicion.

 

[DCNBILL]

You confuse the work of men with the work of God. If you believe that the Gospels, etc, come from God, that is, written by men, but with Divine influence and guardianship, then there is no reason to question the wisdom contained in them. Unfortunately, there was no TV, no internet, no reporters on the scene, giving a minute by minute account of Christ’s life, with news anchors to provide commentary. The Gospels are not intended to be a day by day historical account of Jesus’ life, only to provide His word to mankind.

If you believe that the gospels are written with Divine oversight, then you will believe the wisdom they contain. If, not, then they are just so much history, open to suspicion.

Amen:thumbsup: