The Gospels and non believers

[Roseeurekacross]

Just a random thought. I have never had a non believer attack Faith and Christianity based on the Gospels. As in disputing the historical Jesus and His ministry.

Although the Gospels are really writings of faith. They are more concerned with witnessing to Jesus as the Son of God. Their authors were more concerned with this, then with historical fact.
And the Gospels were written from oral tradition. A memory of those living in the first century. Perhaps we all have this memory.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The gospel writers didn’t see a need to give much historical proof of Jesus’ existence. The reason being is because apparently everyone around had heard about it, and the events stuck with a couple of generations who lived at the time. How monumental those events must have been for so many different people to write about them.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The existence of Jesus has long been settled. He was written about my contemporary non-Christians. The gospels are not our only source.

 

[Seagull]

You cant argue with a Jesus quote - that’s an interesting point.
As they say - they take what He says ‘as Gospel truth’ - lol

But I remember telling someone that homosexuality - is a sin !
He said - “did Jesus say that” - umm - " where does JESUS say that in the Gospel "
He had me there.

I said - The Old Testament and Saint Paul plainly state… " Never mind that. Did Jesus say that ! "

It was a funny odd moment -

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Their authors were more concerned with this, then with historical fact.

This is a completely baseless assertion…

If Jesus is the son of God, the gospels both promote Jesus as the Son of God, and relate historical fact, seeing as how it’s a historical fact that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

No it’s a theological assertion. Many theological writers through the centuries have written about this. As well as our great 20th Century threologian Benedict

The writers were concerned with the message of Jesus, what Jesus was about, who he was, what His Ministry was all about.

Many people have written about this. The Gospels are not a history book. The four canonical Gospels vary in their retelling of stories. Some Gospels have all stories, with variations, some omit stories. They were written for different audiences. Showing who Jesus was, for those people.

So variations in the Gospels are not that much a concern. The three Synoptic Gospels, for example , have Jesus crucified after a Passover meal. John has Jesus crucified on Passover, before the meal, as the sacrificial lamb.

We must remember, except for Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were devout Jewish men who became Jewish Christians. Luke, a Gentile, would have been very aware of Jewish Passover custom.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Yet still no non believer has ever said what a ridiculous story, the Good Samaritan, or what a ridiculous story, being born in a home or stable, or travelling on a donkey .

Not one has said what a ridiculous story, healing a leper, or feeding thousands.

I wonder why the Gospels are not attacked. The human Jesus
I do get people saying no such person existed. But then they will say well yes, Crucifixion was a favourite Roman punishment for rebels and activists like Jesus

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

The Gospels are not a history book.

Well I’d be careful with this assertion. It’s intent was partially to tell a historical account of Christ, and of course they would focus on what was important to the faith, as was the intention of the writing, but it was just as much meant to be historically accurate. The writer of Luke, also being the writer of Acts (where he speaks of Jesus giving convincing proofs in Acts 1:3) was not only an evangelist but also somewhat of a historian.

The four canonical Gospels vary in their retelling of stories. Some Gospels have all stories, with variations, some omit stories.

Considering it was a written down variation of what was spread word-of-mouth, this is more or less to be expected and some of the variation have somewhat of a different explanation for each. Doesn’t necessarily give it less historical value

The three Synoptic Gospels, for example , have Jesus crucified after a Passover meal. John has Jesus crucified on Passover, before the meal, as the sacrificial lamb.

There’s actually a well written explanation for this by Tim Staples in

How Do We Explain the Passover "Discrepancy"? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Tl;dr it has to do with the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

i suggest people read some theology on the Gospels. The intent of the Gospels was to speak about who Jesus was, to the original audience.

They are not intended as a biography. At that point, everyone knew about the Historical Jesus. Everyone knew what had happened. The big questions were why who and how.

Look at the speed with which the Good news of Jesus spread through the Meditteranean in the first few centuries. Jesus was fresh in everyones memory. The radical , the rabble rouser, the man who stood up for the marginalised and the poor. The Jew who ate with sinners , prostitutes and tax collectors. The Jew who challenged the Sadduccees, the temple leaders and teachers. And the pharisees

Each Gospel was written to a different audience. And Jesus is a different person in each. For example , Mark has the Historical Jesus, the human Jesus as the suffering servant. And this is because at the time Mark was writing , Christians and Jews were being persecuted and were suffering. So Mark gave them courage with the example of Jesus in His suffering.

yes Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts. Luke is regarded as a great literary writer. His work is extraordinary. He was talking of Jesus to a gentile audience. Talking of the Historical Jesus, in His humanity, as a saviour to all.

Yes Oral tradition and time and certainly distance separates each author. Although we know Matthew and Luke drew on Marks Gospel and on other sources, i.e. Quelle. Quelle was an oral source as well as thought to be a written source, destroyed when the temple and Jerusalem was destroyed. Matthew and Luke are considered to have written after the destruction , or at the time of the destruction of the Temple.

I have not said there is less historical value.

I have said, the authors did not intend the Gospels to be biographies, or history books.

The intent, theologically speaking and validated by many theologians,

was to explain who Jesus was, the significance of the Risen Jesus.

John wrote in the AD90s, he has a more spiritual Gospel. He firmly placed Jesus as the Passover sacrifice. the Passover lamb. It had much more to do with that then Pharisees and Sadducees. when John was writing, all Jewish Christians had been exiled from their homeland and were living in the diaspora and well beyond.

When Matthew, Luke and John were writing, post and current to the Temple destruction, the Sadducees had all been decimated too. They were the leaders and custodians of the Temple. They were destroyed. But the Pharisees then took over, after the Temple.

So when we read the Gospels, in the first instance, we must place our interpretation of them from within and behind the Gospel reading. Within means what was happening at the time the Gospel was being written, who was it being written to , then behind is who was the Author, how is he describing Jesus and Why.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

To expand on the Gospels a bit, and the image of Jesus each author was painting,

Mark was written by a person of Jewish - Christian background, wrote in Rome around 70CE, we think, and he focussed on the Messiah who must suffer, the crucified Christ. Mark had a higher % of Aramaic then the other Gospels and is a lot more rough and ready.

Matthew was written by a Jewish Christian scribe perhaps in the 80CEs and in Syria. His Jesus, the Human Jesus was the teaching Christ, the New Moses.
He placed the sermons of Jesus on the mount. His Jewish audience could readily identify with this, as Moses had been up and down a mountain in his dialogue with God.

Luke , written by a gentile christian, about the same time as Matthew, wrote a human jesus that was universal, a Jesus for everyone, not just the Jewish people. Luke had sermons on plains, not mounts.

John, wrote about the eternal Christ, the high Christology of Christ, the mystery of Christ.

The pauline Letters written earlier then the Gospels did not focus much on the Life of Christ because the author would have known the oral traditions of Jesus were well known.

The pauline letters have about 9 references to the Life of Jesus, i.e. born of a woman, a jew, had brothers, one being James, 12 disciples, taught, was betrayed and crucified, ate the last supper with the disciples.

 

[Diaconia]

I have said, the authors did not intend the Gospels to be biographies, or history books.

This is certainly true. For example, John, the Disciple that Jesus loved, says:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Jn 20:31

Obviously the emphasis is mine, not John’s.

The Gospels certainly record historic facts about Jesus and his ministry, but the purpose of the Gospels are to convince specific audiences of His divinity and Paschal Mystery.

Having four different evangelists share the stories that were most important to their receipient audiences is a blessing: we see through four different lenses that highlight different aspects of His life.

Remember, only two of them were Apostles, and the other two heard stories from the Apostles second-hand.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. Jn 1:1

I remain a sinner,
Deacon Christopher

 

[adgloriam]

And the Gospels were written from oral tradition. A memory of those living in the first century. Perhaps we all have this memory

Saint John’s gospel ends with him attesting eye witness to everything described therein.

The pauline Letters written earlier then the Gospels

I would have some reasonable doubt on this. Just because today we don’t have earlier copies of the gospels doesn’t mean they hadn’t been written and those first copies lost. Plenty of passages in the gospels are present tense in first person accounts, and I do think that was the testimony given, preserved with exactness, and at one point written down. Not withstanding oral tradition, I do think the better part of the gospels were directly dictated by the evangelist to a scribe. The exact manner of composition is lost in history, but the Holy Spirit does guarantee the texts to be devoid of error.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I believe I misunderstood your intention.

I have heard many people say that the Gospel writers added the miraculous elements to the narrative to support their view of Christ, and so we can’t accept the Gospels as real history. I thought that is what you were implying, which does not seem to be the case. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Its all good. I probably did not make myself very clear

 

[Hodos]

Just a random thought. I have never had a non believer attack Faith and Christianity based on the Gospels. As in disputing the historical Jesus and His ministry.

Although the Gospels are really writings of faith. They are more concerned with witnessing to Jesus as the Son of God. Their authors were more concerned with this, then with historical fact.
And the Gospels were written from oral tradition. A memory of those living in the first century. Perhaps we all have this memory.

Sorry if I didn’t quite understand the thrust of your question. I have seen numerous people actually attack the historicity of Jesus in recent years, although their arguments are pretty thin. Essentially, what ends up happening is that people use standards of historical writing today and read it back into ancient documents (usually selectively).

However, let’s examine the gospels as far as dependability for historical documents. First, yes, it is true that the gospels likely were written long after the events of Jesus life and ministry. However, this is not uncommon in the ancient world. We have no issues accepting the general historicity of characters and events written about by such people as Thucydides (documenting the Pelopponesian War), Suetonius (documenting Roman history), Josephus (writing about the Jewish wars and the intertestamental period), just as examples. So from that standpoint, the gospels, though written by people of faith, are not outside the norm as far as historical documentation in the ancient world. Second, two of the four gospels purport to be written by eyewitnesses (if you accept the traditional authorship of John and Matthew). Even if you don’t, Matthew, and Mark would have been written by close associates of eyewitnesses to the events. Luke does not pretend to be an eyewitness, but in his writings demonstrates that he painstakingly interviewed and obtained testimony from many eyewitnesses. You will notice the “namedropping” nature of Luke’s gospel, citing sources such as Mary, Rufus and Alexander, and other well-known early Christians that he would have had access to and wrote during the lifetime of at least some of the eyewitnesses he cites. John is a little more problematic in that he is a late writer of a gospel account. However, his gospel bears numerous signs of first-hand knowledge, and is actually closest in age and lifespan to the persons who document his authorship of this gospel. So while yes, the things that are recorded are based on oral tradition, we are still talking about an account written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

Also, you make a keen observation about the narrative style of the Bible. It IS intended to communicate a point. However, this is not any different than most of the other historical documents from that realm. And in point of fact, there are many details provided in the gospels that would be embarrassing to those testifying about them, lending credence to their historicity. Entire books have been written about this subject. It really is a fascinating topic.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Also, you make a keen observation about the narrative style of the Bible

The Bible has many different genres, Its books and its writers can usually be identified by the genre, or set of genres they are using.

It is a fascinating topic, and is seen through many lenses. I think you are protestant?

We catholics only started getting into the historical - critical methods and Hermeneutics after mid 20th Century. Other Religions had been paving the way there for a little while.
Thankfully Vatican 11 allowed much broader scholarship of the Bible.

And Yes, no doubting Jesus walked the earth. However, at this point the Gospels are looked at more as their authors explaining who Jesus is and what Jesus did. Rather then a biography.

For example for Mark, Jesus ministry only lasted a year before He was crucified. The other Gospels go with a 3 year ministry. But thats fine because the point is not a biography. Its a how , what, why, when, who. who was this guy we Jews thought would herald in the apocalpyse, This guy who, instead , reversed so many ideas. And who we followed and was then executed as an zealot, a political rabble

 

[PickyPicky]

And Yes, no doubting Jesus walked the earth. However, at this point the Gospels are looked at more as their authors explaining who Jesus is and what Jesus did. Rather then a biography

That’s true, of course, but then even works that are written strictly as biographies have a point of view, a reason for writing. Indeed I would suggest that it is only in very modern times that biographies have been written by authors making a scholarly effort to subdue their own prejudices.

What can be said is that the Gospels — indeed the New Testament generally — and the non-canonical Christian works contain enough matter to keep historians very happily employed.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

and those following the historical-critical methods,

 

[Sedona]

Well, actually I have seen it quite a bit, especially with regard to the historicity of the New Testament. I have not personally however seen a lot of atheists attack the character of Jesus, because it’s hard to argue that he wasn’t a good role model and that He didn’t have some good ideas. So whatever you believe or don’t believe, Jesus stands as a great example for all of us from both a spiritual and a practical perspective in our day to day living.

All the best

 

[Hodos]

You are correct, I am Protestant. Just want to correct one thing though. I do not affirm the historical critical method. That epistemogical method is actually opposed to Christianity. I would say I adhere to the historical grammatical method.