Are the Gospels Historicaly Reliable?

[Reginus]

In his book, Letters From a Skeptic, Greg Boyd presents 9 arguments for the reliablity of the Gospels. 5 of the arguments are internal (in the writing it's self), and the other 4 are external. I have shortened most of them into just a few sentences.

Internal:

1.The Gospels claim to be based on eyewitness accounts. Luke says that he himself is not an eyewitness, but is seeking to write a truthful account and is using eyewitness sources. John specificaly says that he is an eyewitness. Mark and Matthew do not specificaly claim to be eyewitnesses, but are written as if they are.

2. The Gospels are laced with tons of unimportant details that typicaly incompany eyewitness acounts. Here is one example "that is all the more important because it deals with the Resurrection" (John 20:1-8):

Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail, see the next criteria) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disiple, the one Jesus loved (John's modest way of referring to himself - other mark of genuineness) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" (note her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John's modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail?) He bent over (the tomb entrance was low - a detailwhich is historicaly accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time - the kind we know Jesus was burried in) and looked at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevent detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him (modest repetition again), arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head (irrelevant and unexpected detail - what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, seperate from the linen (could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual than this? Jesus folded one part of His wrappings before he left!) Finally, the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about the exact order the went in?).

You get the point. There is absolutly no reason to throw in so much random detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, but makes it seem as if the author is recalling an event. The Gospels are full of this kind of stuff!

3. The Gospels are full of self-damaging material. For example, the Gospels tell about the testomony from Mary Magdalene. However, this could only be damaging, because durring the time period, women were thought of as incurible "tail-bearers", and were not even permited to testify in court. The deciples are repetedly portrayed in bad light. Also, there are some details which would have almost certainly been excluded if the Gospels were being fabricated. For example, on the cross Jesus proclames "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  This is hardly what you would expect from a devine Messiah.

(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.

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

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.

(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)

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

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.

[Heretical Rants]

Harry Potter was snoring loudly. ( self incriminating) He had been sitting in a chair beside his bedroom window for the best part of four hours, staring out at the darkening street, and had finally fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open. (who cares?) The misty fug his breath had left on the window sparkled in the orange glare of the streetlamp outside, and the artificial light drained his face of all color, so that he looked ghostly beneath his shock of untidy black hair.(damaging to image)


 How to irritate an atheist #170

Just so you know... This doesn't really irritate me.  That's just the title of the article.

[Arctonyx]

1.The Gospels claim to be based on eyewitness accounts. Luke says that he himself is not an eyewitness, but is seeking to write a truthful account and is using eyewitness sources. John specificaly says that he is an eyewitness. Mark and Matthew do not specificaly claim to be eyewitnesses, but are written as if they are.

Therefore all eyewitness accounts, or people claiming to write things based on eye witness accounts are completely reliable? Especially if there are no other extra-biblical corroborating texts?

2. The Gospels are laced with tons of unimportant details that typicaly incompany eyewitness acounts. Here is one example "that is all the more important because it deals with the Resurrection" (John 20:1-8):]

[bible quote]

You get the point. There is absolutly no reason to throw in so much random detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, but makes it seem as if the author is recalling an event. The Gospels are full of this kind of stuff!

This kind of stuff is generally included in every fairy tale. Why is it relevant that Santa Clause comes down the chimney?

3. The Gospels are full of self-damaging material. For example, the Gospels tell about the testomony from Mary Magdalene. However, this could only be damaging, because durring the time period, women were thought of as incurible "tail-bearers", and were not even permited to testify in court. The deciples are repetedly portrayed in bad light. Also, there are some details which would have almost certainly been excluded if the Gospels were being fabricated. For example, on the cross Jesus proclames "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  This is hardly what you would expect from a devine Messiah.

So because a text includes questionable things, that makes it more believable? In that situation, the case for the invisible purple chaffinch on my left shoulder just got that much stronger.

Sorry, but if the rest of the arguments are like this they either:

a) make no sense.
b) provide just as much credence to any other religious text.

[curiosityandthecat]

Isn't this a historical version of "I Said So"?

[Reginus]

This kind of stuff is generally included in every fairy tale.

Eh, I don't think so.

Why is it relevant that Santa Clause comes down the chimney?

He has to get inside the house some how...

[LoneMateria]

I really recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  He goes over the plagiarism from one author to the next in the bible (Matthew plagiarized from Mark), he talks about how it was common in the early church to write letters to your congregation in the name of the church heads like Paul.  In addition he talks about how the bible was changed either on accident or otherwise, by early heretics and apologists.  

I guess i'm on to number 2 now.  The details are what makes a story good, would you read a story from an author that said, "A body was discovered.  Another body was discovered.  The killer is now dead.  The End?"  No details are what makes a story good.  But I have a question for you, what happens when that detail conflicts with itself?  There are different accounts when Jesus was crucified, when how long it took him to come back from the dead.  What he says before he dies.  Who he sees first, and where he goes after he dies.  And so on.  The creators put too much detail in which conflicts with the other supposed accounts either through carelessness or whatever.  

Now number 3.  So if I were writing a book before the equal rights movement for black people, would having a black person in my story be damaging?

[Arctonyx]

Eh, I don't think so.

Pretty much every fairy tale I can think of has this kind of unnecessary additional details.

He has to get inside the house some how...

They have to get inside the tomb somehow...

[SSY]

Wow, really, just wow. I am going to leave the details out and point out how silly internal arguments are.

The only thing you can say about the gospels' truthfulness, from just reading the gospels, is whether or not they are self consistent. You are trying to say, "
The gospels' have characteristics x, y and z.
Any story that has x, y and z must be true
Hence, the gospels' are true"

Of course, the problem with your argument is that your second premise is completely wrong.

You cannot judge whether something is true without comparing it to the outside world (what it purports to be true about). The only thing you can judge is whether or not they are self consistent, they fail this test to in case you were wondering. From the tone of your posts, you don't seem stupid, you don't seem like a rabid, raving, loony fanatic, if you critically evaluate the evidence, you will see it does not stand up. Once you realise this, it does not mean you have to forsake your god and go to the winds, but it does mean you will be a more reasonable, rational person, this is surely a good thing? You obviously want these gospels to be true, but that should mean you are even more rigorous in your self discipline and evidenciery standards, so as to rule out the specter of confirmation bias. It is a good thing you have posted them here, we can help you  

[Kylyssa]

Any good writer adds these kind of details to a story he or she is telling.  It gives emotional impact.  If we don't add these small and irrelevant details readers will not relate to our characters as if they were real people.  It's just good storytelling.  
 
Please, do not (and I mean do not) pull out the old saw about people not being sophisticated enough to write a great story almost two thousand years ago.  Human beings have had basically the same intelligence and imagination for far longer than that.

[LoneMateria]

Kylyssa is right just look at the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and the other books we have from antiquity.

[Heretical Rants]

Kylyssa is right just look at the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and the other books we have from antiquity.

...and Harry Potter.
J.K. Rowling just ripped it off of some ancient hieroglyphic scrolls.
It's proof that a technologically complex Muggle society once lived alongside Wizards, presumably before the Great Flood.  It also demonstrates that society and politics are cyclical, because they had a Prime Minister, just like we do.

I also believe that the Odyssey is accurate in its entirety, partly because it coincides with actual events.

[curiosityandthecat]

[rlrose328]

I also believe that the Odyssey is accurate in its entirety, partly because it coincides with actual events.

Um...  :blink:  

[LoneMateria]

I preferred the Iliad which too coincided with actual events.  Must be 100% true.  Couldn't help but notice the other 6 reasons were never posted, I guess if we tear apart the first 3 reasons no point in posting the other 6 ^_^

[Heretical Rants]

OOO, he updated it