Historical reliability of the 4 gospels

[KGM]

I am currently writing a letter to my sister who has fallen away from the Catholic Church. She doesn’t believe in the historical reliability of the 4 gospels. Therefore she does not believe that Jesus came and died for our sins. Her arguement is that they were written so many years after Jesus died that they can not be entirely reliable. How can I explain to her that the 4 gospels are indeed the word of God and are reliable? Thanks for any help. I’m struggling to write this letter. KGM

 

[RyanL]

kgm,

here’s a start (parts 1 & 2):
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp

it may also be worth reading (protestant) lee strobel’s “the case for Christ”. his background is as a yale educated lawyer and editor for the chicago tribune - fairly good credentials. he started agnostic, and ended christian. the book is fairly well written and convincing, and over-all an easy read. if there are more intellectual stumbling blocks (i.e., theological), i could be of much more help (as those were my stumbling blocks)…

good luck and may God give you the words,
RyanL

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

I’ll second the recommendation for Stroebel’s The Case for Christ. It’s a very easy read, and doesn’t read on any toes, doctrinally speaking.

Also, Craig Blomberg, noted New Testament (albeit Protestant) scholar, has a book called, incidentally, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. To tell you the truth, I’ve only skimmed this one, but it’s still very good.

Best of luck.

 

[Liberian]

KGM:

I am currently writing a letter to my sister who has fallen away from the Catholic Church. She doesn’t believe in the historical reliability of the 4 gospels. Therefore she does not believe that Jesus came and died for our sins. Her arguement is that they were written so many years after Jesus died that they can not be entirely reliable. How can I explain to her that the 4 gospels are indeed the word of God and are reliable? Thanks for any help. I’m struggling to write this letter. KGM

KGM,

I wish you all the best in your effort. I don’t have any good source material but I can point out that the death and resurrection of Jesus are together the best-documented events in all of history down to about 500 years ago. Everything else that we know about the ancient and medieval world comes to us on thinner evidence than we have in the Gospels.

• Liberian

 

[patg]

There are as many opinions about the historicity of the gospels as there are people who care about the subject.

Basically, the gospels are NOT history as we know it - they are a reflection of the writers’ belief in the divinity of Jesus. They are full of historical errors and inconsistencies but they are telling the “truth” in a way that is not concerned with history.

The church acknowledges this in several papal documents and actually requires belief in very little of the “history” presented in the gospels.

I personaly find Strobel a very poor presenter of balanced scholarship and prefer a catholic writer, scholar, and teacher such as Margaret Ralph.

 

[RyanL]

i never said strobel was “balanced”, just fairly well written and convincing. it’s obvious from page one that he has an agenda. actually, i thought a couple of his arguments were a little out-to-lunch, but taken as a whole it presents some of the better apologetic arguments for (read: methods for proving) the reliability of the gospels.

RyanL

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Basically, the gospels are NOT history as we know it - they are a reflection of the writers’ belief in the divinity of Jesus. They are full of historical errors and inconsistencies but they are telling the “truth” in a way that is not concerned with history.
.

Catholic sources please!

 

[patg]

RyanL:

i never said strobel was “balanced”, just fairly well written and convincing. it’s obvious from page one that he has an agenda. actually, i thought a couple of his arguments were a little out-to-lunch, but taken as a whole it presents some of the better apologetic arguments for (read: methods for proving) the reliability of the gospels.

RyanL

I agree it is well-written and appears on the surface to be convincing. The problem with it is that while Strobel frequently reminds you that he used to be a hard-nosed, skeptical journalist, Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks many such individuals in his book.

Additionally, most of the book is written with the notion that the gospels are historically accurate, so when questions are posed the “professionals” more often than not answer by quoting the Bible.

I say read with a grain of salt. As other reviewers have said, this is beautiful trap for the naive and ignorant, because it seems thorough, but it was a Christian interviewing Christians, so of course there can only be one outcome.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

patg:

Basically, the gospels are NOT history as we know it - they are a reflection of the writers’ belief in the divinity of Jesus. They are full of historical errors and inconsistencies but they are telling the “truth” in a way that is not concerned with history.

The Gospels are written in the form of Ancient History, especially the book of Acts. That is to say, like the histories of Josephus, they are based on actual events that the author uses (quite liberally at times) to convey a message or moral.

I don’t know of any “historical errors” in any of the New Testament (they’re pretty accurate to their time period and geography). If by inconsistencies you mean that the Gospels are different in chronilogical order of events, you have a point, but a very modernist point.

I’d also like to add that I think Strobel’s books are at least a fair as PBS frontline specials.
Anyhoo, there’s always this stuff to check out:
leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Violla, or however it is said.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Catholic sources please!

Well, you could start by just comparing the gospels as even a cursory glance will unearth numerous historical problems but for more “official” analysis here a few solid references:

• The papal documents Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu state that the bible is not all history and specifically authorize the use of the historical-critical approach to bible study.
• *And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph, Paulist Press. This is the textbook for Catholic Adult Religious education in numerous dioseses.
• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by Fr. John Meier (written under the imprimatur) Professor of New Testament studies, Catholic Univ. of America
• The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible by Donald Senior discusses the non-historical nature of the Infancy Narratives among other things.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Well, you could start by just comparing the gospels as even a cursory glance will unearth numerous historical problems but for more “official” analysis here a few solid references:

• The papal documents Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu state that the bible is not all history and specifically authorize the use of the historical-critical approach to bible study.
• *And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph, Paulist Press. This is the textbook for Catholic Adult Religious education in numerous dioseses.
• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by Fr. John Meier (written under the imprimatur) Professor of New Testament studies, Catholic Univ. of America
• The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible by Donald Senior discusses the non-historical nature of the Infancy Narratives among other things.

[The Gospels as history (The Gospels as history by Thomas McGovern)

As we have already seen, the first sentence of this paragraph contains the phrase “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms.” This was introduced in the final draft of the schema of Dei Verbum as a result of the direct intervention of Pope Paul VI.

The historicity of the gospels is thus presented to us in Dei Verbum as a datum which has been, and continues to be, an object of the faith of the Church. It is therefore a truth which claims the full assent of faith of the believing Christian, even though there are objective difficulties in understanding it, both from the point of view of the internal structure of the Scriptures (relating texts among themselves), as well as from the scientific confirmation of the events narrated. As a datum of faith, it is an essential premise of theological research, especially in the exegetical area, since theology as a science is developed from first principles which are the principles of the faith.

DESTROYING THE BIBLE

Dominum et vivificantem

[Historicity of Gospels (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=62)

[** The Gospels are Historical** (http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

 

[patg]

buffalo:

As we have already seen, the first sentence of this paragraph contains the phrase “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms.” This was introduced in the final draft of the schema of Dei Verbum as a result of the direct intervention of Pope Paul VI.

Yeah, that’s the problem with Dei Verbum - you can find something to support about anything related to biblical interpretation somewhere in it. And then there is the practical teaching being provided to the adults of the church and the writings by the church scholars all of which strongly follow the historical-critical path of Dei Verbum.

Modern historical scholarship and the historical-critical methods are what brought me back to the church. If the magesterium required belief in the absolute literal historicity of the bible I would laugh and walk away from such an untenable claim.

 

[Axion]

Historical-critical theories have driven more people away from the church than almost anything else. Their whole basis is that the bible-writers were liars, conmen and deceivers. These theories have been consistently condemned by the Church, but keep reappearing because of their near-universal acceptance by modernist bible-“scholars”.

The fact is these people have no evidence at all for their claims. Yet they repeat hem consistently as if they were fact. and they sneak into the notes of the NAB and NJB - again as if they were facts. Therefore those people with weak faith who read these notes, find themselves being told that Matthew and Luke made up the infancy narratives, that most of what we read about Jesus was invented, and that most of the Old Testament is fiction. **Is it any wonder that these people then lose their Faith?{/b]

To take just one example of the historical-critical madness relevant to the original question. When was the Gospel of Luke written?

The Liberal “bible-scholars” say - 90 AD or 2nd Century. Why? Because the gospel mentions a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. And since, according to them, a realised prophecy HAS to be a later addition, inserted by a lying author, the gospel must have been written **after ** the event!

But actually Luke is part of a two part work that finishes with ACTS. Acts contains a first person account of the voyages of Paul and finishes abruptly with Paul’s imprisonment in the 60s AD. Since Paul’s martyrdom is not included, and would be the culmination of the story, it is fairly clear that Acts and Luke were written no later than 65 AD.**

 

[Liberian]

patg:

There are as many opinions about the historicity of the gospels as there are people who care about the subject.

Basically, the gospels are NOT history as we know it - they are a reflection of the writers’ belief in the divinity of Jesus. They are full of historical errors and inconsistencies but they are telling the “truth” in a way that is not concerned with history.

Patg,

OK, please put your money where your mouth is. May I have the start of a list of the historical errors and inconsistencies of which the gospels are full?

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

patg:

Originally Posted by buffalo

As we have already seen, the first sentence of this paragraph contains the phrase “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms.” This was introduced in the final draft of the schema of Dei Verbum as a result of the direct intervention of Pope Paul VI.

Yeah, that’s the problem with Dei Verbum - you can find something to support about anything related to biblical interpretation somewhere in it. And then there is the practical teaching being provided to the adults of the church and the writings by the church scholars all of which strongly follow the historical-critical path of Dei Verbum.

Modern historical scholarship and the historical-critical methods are what brought me back to the church. If the magesterium required belief in the absolute literal historicity of the bible I would laugh and walk away from such an untenable claim.

Patg,

Again, I have to ask you to make up your mind. First you cite Dei Verbum as a reference and then you say that the problem with it is that it will support pretty much anything related to biblical interpretation. Which is it? Is Dei Verbum reliable or is it not?

There is also a great distinction between saying that “the 4 gospels are generally historically reliable” and “the magisterium require{s} belief in the absolute literal historicity of the Bible.” The Gospels are nowhere near the whole Bible, and saying that Psalms and Canticles are not historical is far different from saying that the Gospels are not historical.

• Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

Patg,
Again, I have to ask you to make up your mind. First you cite Dei Verbum as a reference and then you say that the problem with it is that it will support pretty much anything related to biblical interpretation. Which is it? Is Dei Verbum reliable or is it not?

I don’t know what you mean by “reliable”. I cited it because:

1. 
   *]Someone asked for some “catholic” references and you can’t get any more Catholic than this.
   *]It encourages the historical-critical process and describes how truth is conveyed in non-historical writings which appear historical to us.
   
   I don’t know what “reliability” has to do with it - it talks about the past and present of scriptural interpretion and the use of newer tools for future investigations. It leaves open the literal vs. non-literal historical questions so it is not reliable as a “magic bullet” to settle that debate but that openness is what allows continued work and progress in this field of study.
   

   There is also a great distinction between saying that “the 4 gospels are generally historically reliable” and “the magisterium require{s} belief in the absolute literal historicity of the Bible.” The Gospels are nowhere near the whole Bible, and saying that Psalms and Canticles are not historical is far different from saying that the Gospels are not historical.

   Ok, we can stick to the gospels - gospels are not history and the church does not require belief that everything in the gospels is literal history. They may contain historical elements but their purpose is not to describe events with what we think of as historical accuracy. Dei Verbum specifically states that we must consider the “literary form” of bible writings and the gospels contain many different literary forms, many of which are not history.

 

[patg]

Liberian:

Patg,

OK, please put your money where your mouth is. May I have the start of a list of the historical errors and inconsistencies of which the gospels are full?

• Liberian

I was about to start a list or refer to any of the dozens of books which discuss this but then I thought of a better question (or maybe I’m just too lazy to start this endless process again) - are historical errors really errors when they occur in something which is never meant to be history in the first place? If we could ever settle that, we wouldn’t have to discuss the errors.

For example, the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke are of a literary form known as an “infancy narrative”. It was very commonly used to describe the origins of important people in the ancient world and the gospel stories are textbook examples of this genre. These stories were not meant to be history and no reader of the time would have thought them to be history. We don’t use that form today so we naturally read them as history. It is pretty trivial to point out the many glaring errors in them - dates which don’t line up, major events for which there is no record, symbolic events included to make a theological point, etc.

There are any number of stories included throughout the gospels to teach theological truths which aren’t and don’t need to be history. Even near the end of Jesus’ life, there are things like the story of Barrabas at the trial - the release of a prisoner at Passover was never a Jewish or Roman custom. So, even though it is a symbolic story about the Jews, the average reader assumes it is history becasue it “sounds like history”.

I don’t know, maybe I can find a list from a previous post…

 

[patg]

Axion:

Historical-critical theories have driven more people away from the church than almost anything else. Their whole basis is that the bible-writers were liars, conmen and deceivers.

You have a very wrong understanding of these theories, although I’m sure some have described them in those terms. To teach theological truths using historical fiction, allegory, symbolism, fantasy, or any other literary form is not being a liar, con-man of deceiver - it is being a skilled and gifted writer and teacher. To not recognize the form being used makes the reader ignorant, not the writer.

These theories have been consistently condemned by the Church, but keep reappearing because of their near-universal acceptance by modernist bible-“scholars”.

Wrong again - these theories are specifically condoned by the church in the papal document Dei Verbum, among others.

The fact is these people have no evidence at all for their claims.

See my references - you sound like you’ve been listening to too many extremists and not enough serious scholars.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

I don’t know what you mean by “reliable”. I cited it because:

1. 
   *]Someone asked for some “catholic” references and you can’t get any more Catholic than this.
   *]It encourages the historical-critical process and describes how truth is conveyed in non-historical writings which appear historical to us.
   
   I don’t know what “reliability” has to do with it - it talks about the past and present of scriptural interpretion and the use of newer tools for future investigations. It leaves open the literal vs. non-literal historical questions so it is not reliable as a “magic bullet” to settle that debate but that openness is what allows continued work and progress in this field of study.
   
   Ok, we can stick to the gospels - gospels are not history and the church does not require belief that everything in the gospels is literal history. They may contain historical elements but their purpose is not to describe events with what we think of as historical accuracy. Dei Verbum specifically states that we must consider the “literary form” of bible writings and the gospels contain many different literary forms, many of which are not history.

1. 
   Matthew and John are first person accounts. Mark is writing down what Peter is preaching. They are historical and reliable and archeology is backing that up more and more.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Matthew and John are first person accounts. Mark is writing down what Peter is preaching. They are historical and reliable and archeology is backing that up more and more.

Wow, that’s a new one! Where did you get this?

We don’t even have a complete copy of any gospel dated less than a hundred years after Jesus’ death so the chance for historicity and reliability is pretty small.

Matthew is mostly a copy of of Mark (except fot the “Q” pieces). And John is so radically different from the others that its difficult to believe that he is even writing about the same person as the synoptics.