Are the Gospels Historicaly Reliable?

[Karras]

4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

I find that doubtful but do you have any evidence that later authors did not have access to earlier works? Also, given that few if any of them even claimed to be eye witnesses, a simpler explanation would be that they were merely going by what they heard from other people (who may or may not themselves have claimed to be eye witnesses).

5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

I have read plenty of works of fiction that describe at least some of their fantastical events in a very matter of fact way. The works of George R R Martin and David Gemmell spring to mind.

I shall take C.S. Lewis' opinon under advisement, thanks.

1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

Does anyone actually have evidence that the original disciples were the authors of any of the gospels? I was rather under the impression this was not the case so speculating as to what their motives might have been is ultimately pointless. In fact, can you even trace a line of chinese whispers from the original disciples to the written gospels with any certainty?

[LoneMateria]

(Edit:)
4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

Suggested by whom?  The author?  Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed.  Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous.  I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James.  Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things

First can you be anymore vague?  What is considered main features of mythology?  As far as I know in mythology there are gods which tributes are offered to plead for their help in killing enemies.  Wow OT right there, Crusades, and the Inquisition too.  C.S. Lewis is a poor apologist and historian.  C.S. Lewis believes that if a miracle was written down its proof the miracle happens.  If thats the case C.S. Lewis should believe the miracles of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, etc.  However all Lewis does is special plead for his god because its his god.

External arguments:

1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

What motive could Joseph Smith have for fabricating the Book of Mormon or Hubbord for Scientology?  Lets see you get lots of sex and money.  Why would they lie see previous 2 sentences.  Really can you define very very few?  Or is it very very few the author knows of?  Um if you are going to believe in the story of the bible then the disciple who betrayed Jesus could be exhibit 'A' that the author is wrong.

Also there is no proof the original authors of the bible were the disciples. (Thanx Karras I forgot to mention that)

(edit 2:)
2. There are many ancient texts from the same period of time from which we can learn about Jesus and the explosion in Christianity. Secular sources which mention Jesus include, but are not limited to:
-Tacitus
-Suetonius
-Josephus
-Thallus
As well as ancient Jewish writing writen against the Christians (ex. the Talmud)

Lets see Tactius was born after Jesus died, so he can't be used as a reference to someone who lived and died before him.  All he can do is confirm there were Christians at that time.  Same with Suetonius, Josephus and Thallus(since they put him at the end of the 1st century).  And there has been writings against Christians from those times, considering many pagans thought Christians were godless because they claimed to worship the god of the Jews but not follow that gods laws.  Also we have writings against Christianity which complain that Christians change their bible all the time to get rid of ridicule and contradictions.  The Christians who responded didn't deny those allegations they instead tries to spin it like it was a good thing.  

3. While many archeological findings support the events referenced to in the Gospels, no event in the Gospels has been disproven by an archeological finding (though many people have attempted to do this.) As Greg Boyd writes:

To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken durring the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinus was governer of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is where Jesus was born. But we know from other ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirinus was governer beginning in A.D.6, and there is no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinus' reign in A.D.6 was his second term

Lets see neither has the Iliad, it doesn't mean the supernatural events and miracles are true.  It doesn't mean Achelles or Hector existed because there was a Troy.  And the census bullshit, saying that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because his remote ancestor lived there would be like saying my home town is Athens because my remote ancestors came from there.  

4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

Jewish leaders didn't care much.  Look at Christianity today with over 30,000 sects, some fight one and other but must get along.  Jewish leaders wanted it gone when it was too late.  Early Christianity was like todays Scientology, most people say let them live their own lives until they start something.  Early Christianity was a joke to most people, they received ridicule mostly and the occasional isolated violent attack against them.

[Reginus]

Suggested by whom?  The author?  Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed.  Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous.  I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James.  Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

In responce to aligations of modification of the Gospels:
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

First can you be anymore vague?  What is considered main features of mythology?  As far as I know in mythology there are gods which tributes are offered to plead for their help in killing enemies.  Wow OT right there, Crusades, and the Inquisition too.  C.S. Lewis is a poor apologist and historian.  C.S. Lewis believes that if a miracle was written down its proof the miracle happens.  If thats the case C.S. Lewis should believe the miracles of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, etc.  However all Lewis does is special plead for his god because its his god.

I think that you have a somewhat narrow definition of mythology. Do Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood make any references to God at all? In any case, I always thought of legends as stories oraly passed down from generation to generation, being refined over time to become more epic and exciting. Now, are the Gospels exciting or epic? Not really. Jesus born in a stable, and died a violent death which he did not fight against. In the Gospels, unlike like legends, suspence and action do not really build up to a climax. As for C.S. Lewis, I don't understand why you think he is a poor apologist and historian of mythology; and where did you get the idea that he believed every miracle written down was real?

What motive could Joseph Smith have for fabricating the Book of Mormon or Hubbord for Scientology?  Lets see you get lots of sex and money.  Why would they lie see previous 2 sentences.  Really can you define very very few?  Or is it very very few the author knows of?  Um if you are going to believe in the story of the bible then the disciple who betrayed Jesus could be exhibit 'A' that the author is wrong. Also there is no proof the original authors of the bible were the disciples. (Thanx Karras I forgot to mention that)

lmao, I'm just trying the the imagine the disiples becoming filthy rich with a bunch of wives and everything. Here's a question: would Hubbord create Scientology if he knew full and well that he would likely be killed for it? I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down! As for whether or not the Gospels were written by the Apostles, I don't have enough of a background to tell you what the main consensus is, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be. If I remember correctly, the Gospels were most likely written sometime between 50-70 A.D. and Luke actualy lived to be 84! You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actualy write Harry Potter.

[Heretical Rants]

I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down!

Why would Paul or Peter lie?  Why did Jim Jones lie?  He ended up dying along with the rest of his cult when they drank the Kool-Aid.

You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actually write Harry Potter.

Dude, some of those words have double consonants.

Also, I already told you:  R.K. Rowling got Harry Potter off of an ancient scroll.

[Karras]

Suggested by whom? The author? Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed. Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous. I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James. Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

In responce to aligations of modification of the Gospels:
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

Erm, no, that misses the point.

I have seen Christians trot out this before to try and prove the accuracy of the Bible, yet all it seems to be arguing for is the unchanging nature of it since the first version was canonized. A work of fiction 2000 years ago is still a work of fiction today, no matter how faithfully it was reproduced.

Furthermore, do you have any comments on the non-canonical gospels or why they were not included?

lmao, I'm just trying the the imagine the disiples becoming filthy rich with a bunch of wives and everything. Here's a question: would Hubbord create Scientology if he knew full and well that he would likely be killed for it? I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down! As for whether or not the Gospels were written by the Apostles, I don't have enough of a background to tell you what the main consensus is, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be. If I remember correctly, the Gospels were most likely written sometime between 50-70 A.D. and Luke actualy lived to be 84! You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actualy write Harry Potter.

Please provide evidence that they knew they would be killed for it. Preferably frm a non-biblical source. I have heard the martyrdom thing mentioned before, always without citing any sources. Furthermore, people throughout history have died for many different causes. Do suicide bombers really get their 72 virgins in your mind? They wouldn't die for a lie, right?

So just living at the same time is enough evidence to prove authorship? Don't be daft! Provide a citation from are reputable biblical scholar (preferably more than one or some evidence of a consensus) stating that the gospels are confirmed to have been written by the original disciples or stop using such nonsense to support your case.

Oh and, to go back to this point:

4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

A rather simpler and more plausible explanation would be either that Jesus never existed or that no claims were ever actually made of his resurrection around the time of his actual death. Considering the first accouts are from decades later, the latter seems very plausible indeed.


You "evidence" consists of little more than passing references to him in non-contemporaneous accounts, opinions on what make for a proper myth or legend and some unsubstantiated waffle.

Edited for spelling.

[Arctonyx]

4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

How is that evidence? In any way shape or form? You're just assuming that, because it supports your predetermined conclusions. I'm sure that if I had a ton of predetermined conclusions that I could find 'evidence' for them in almost any text.

5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

They have all the signs of legendary accretion. Legends, when you get down to the basics are: attaching supernatural or fantastical acts and experiences to a person in order to make the person seem supernatural or great. Doesn't matter whether that person is real or just a fiction, it happens in all sorts of legends and religious texts. Plus a nice argument from authority.

1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

Hmm, how about what everyone is after... power? These disciples had an awful lot to gain by fabricating the gospels, namely power and influence over people. And there is nothing to suggest that the disciples were honest in character either.

(edit 2:)
2. There are many ancient texts from the same period of time from which we can learn about Jesus and the explosion in Christianity. Secular sources which mention Jesus include, but are not limited to:
-Tacitus
-Suetonius
-Josephus
-Thallus
As well as ancient Jewish writing writen against the Christians (ex. the Talmud)

You and I obviously have a very different meaning of 'periods of time', historical records created decades after the supposed events happened, in my view aren't compelling evidence. It's odd as well that none of these 'historical records' record any of Jesus's amazing miracles and resurrection. You'd think a historian would find those quite important, and not neglect to mention them until decades after they supposedly happened.

3. While many archeological findings support the events referenced to in the Gospels, no event in the Gospels has been disproven by an archeological finding (though many people have attempted to do this.) As Greg Boyd writes:
To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken durring the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinus was governer of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is where Jesus was born. But we know from other ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirinus was governer beginning in A.D.6, and there is no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinus' reign in A.D.6 was his second term

Archaeological findings do very little to discredit a lot of legends and myths. Just because we can say with certainty that there was a city in Italy called Rome that was controlled by the Roman Empire, doesn't mean we can say with certainty that any texts that mention Rome are correct in every other detail. Saying that archaeological evidence hasn't disproven some biblical events, therefore the bible is true is tantamount to saying: I live in the UK, leprechauns are real.

Just because there is 1 verifiable fact in that sentence doesn't automatically make the rest of it correct.

4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

No they wouldn't. People who have faith in their beliefs would have simply said: "I can't hear you, lalalalalalala" and stuck their fingers in their ears. You're saying that people won't believe something when it's shown to be false. Just look at creationism, or the thousands of other people believing in things which have a mountain of evidence showing them to be fabrications.

[LoneMateria]

Lol i'm gone for a little while and people answer Reginus' questions for me TY Karras and Arctonyx.  Before I counter the one part of Reginus' post that was not addressed i'm going to reinforce a point made by Arctonyx.  

Archaeological findings do very little to discredit a lot of legends and myths. Just because we can say with certainty that there was a city in Italy called Rome that was controlled by the Roman Empire, doesn't mean we can say with certainty that any texts that mention Rome are correct in every other detail

Just because New York is real doesn't mean Spiderman ever existed.

I think that you have a somewhat narrow definition of mythology. Do Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood make any references to God at all? In any case, I always thought of legends as stories oraly passed down from generation to generation, being refined over time to become more epic and exciting. Now, are the Gospels exciting or epic? Not really. Jesus born in a stable, and died a violent death which he did not fight against. In the Gospels, unlike like legends, suspence and action do not really build up to a climax. As for C.S. Lewis, I don't understand why you think he is a poor apologist and historian of mythology; and where did you get the idea that he believed every miracle written down was real?

I don't know if my definition of mythology is narrow it might be common.  To me and the 4 friends I asked the first thing we think of when we think of mythology is the ancient greek and roman works.  Anyway you make a good point with Paul Bunyan and Robin Hood (I haven't heard those stories since I was a little child so I don't know if they reference a god or not).  The Gospels are often cited as epic and i'm sure some people would consider them exciting though you and I probably do not.  I'm sure people get excited with the sermon of the mount and the miracles.  You are grossly misrepresenting the story by saying he was born and he died.  Climax = Jesus was crucified the story builds up to that especially once you know the romans sent their men after Jesus.

I've listened to C.S. Lewis debate a few times (long time ago).  One of the times (I don't remember who) asked Lewis if he believed in the miracles of the bible, he said yes.  Then he asked why because it was written down.  Lewis gave some long answer in which he basically said that the gospels were accurate and have been preserved by the disciples, but then he started asking questions and he ended up changing the topic before anyone really noticed.  I had to listen to it twice, but it was a yes without saying yes.  Since then I never really took C.S. Lewis seriously.  Just a note he wouldn't say that about our other classic works its just special pleading because its for HIS god.

[jim666]

The First Council of Nicaea 325AD kicked in to touch quite a number of ‘holy’ books notably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdala (Magdalene) because they did not fit the ‘political’ picture that Constantine wanted to portray. Perfect example of how the winners write history to suit their political needs.

[jim666]

What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/

[curiosityandthecat]

What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/

[Reginus]

I've decided that I cannot really argue much further, as I just don't have enough of a background in biblical history. I would Iove to see someone have a debate on the same topic with Braxhunt, is he seems far more knowlegable on the subject than I am.

I've listened to C.S. Lewis debate a few times (long time ago). One of the times (I don't remember who) asked Lewis if he believed in the miracles of the bible, he said yes. Then he asked why because it was written down. Lewis gave some long answer in which he basically said that the gospels were accurate and have been preserved by the disciples, but then he started asking questions and he ended up changing the topic before anyone really noticed. I had to listen to it twice, but it was a yes without saying yes. Since then I never really took C.S. Lewis seriously. Just a note he wouldn't say that about our other classic works its just special pleading because its for HIS god.

I would be interested in listening to or reading that debate if you still remember where you found it.

[LoneMateria]

I would be interested in listening to or reading that debate if you still remember where you found it.

I'll try to remember, I listened to it a few years back and don't remember much of the debate.  I remember that part and a few bits and pieces.  If I remember it i'll pm you ^_^

[Heretical Rants]

What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/

:blink: +1 and WTF

[Arctonyx]

I've decided that I cannot really argue much further, as I just don't have enough of a background in biblical history. I would Iove to see someone have a debate on the same topic with Braxhunt, is he seems far more knowlegable on the subject than I am.

Well so far on the topic of gospel historicity he's used the same arguments. Which simply don't hold true, condensing the whole argument into a couple of sentences:

1: Are the Gospels historically accurate?

2: No.

There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

[Reginus]

There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

K, what ever floats your boat dude.