Evidence for the Events in the NT

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2009 05:04PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Ot are not oral tradition they were written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone closely connected to the eyewitness.

This has been mentioned many times before when discussing the Gospels and the fact of the matter is that the anonymous authors of the Gospels themselves never claim to have known Jesus personally or to have been closely connected to any eyewinesses and they do not write as if they were present and took part in any of the events they describe.

The difference being is that Gladiator would have been written by a fiction author 2,000 or so years after the events portrayed. No serious historian would accept it as being a portryal of someones life. In this case teh Gladiators.

Well I used Gladiator as an example, I could have used The Godfather or Rambo or whatever. My point was that if the fictional stories were handed to a historian in the future he would not necessarily believe the main storyline to be fact just because it refers to contemporary historical events which can be verified as actually having happened.

Similarly for the Gospels. Just because they refer to real people and places which can be verified as being historically accurate it doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that the details which can't possible be verified are also true.

Nodin · 11-02-2009 05:21PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Ot are not oral tradition they were written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone closely connected to the eyewitness..

NT, NT. Before wrathful hordes descend on thee.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And yes you can not look at it in a modern sense you have to look at it in a historicl asense by the records of ancient Rome and the character and culture of Ancient Rome...

Really? Why? Was it written entirely by Romans?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You have four gospels, all telling the story of Jesus of Nazareth and His ministry.

They are valid history, written by eyewitnesses or someone close to the eyerwitness. They are as much history as the writings of Josephus or Tacitus or Pliny....

None of them were written by eyewitnesses, as I understand it. Secondly, they catalogue the supernatural, in certain cases. This is obviously going to cause massive problems, because no-one in human history has catalogued and observed reproducable supernatural phenomena. Now you can of course just take it on faith. But thats a different kettle of fish entirely.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And to boot archaeology supports the history. Discovered records support the events. Other writers of time support the events.....

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

This kind of thing always reminds me of a scene from "D'arby O'Gill and the Little People". Yer man brings the leprachaun into the pub in a box. The barman looks in and gives the leprachaun a drink. He takes the empty glass out of the box, and leaves it up on the shelf - "proof" he says, that it happened.

Fanny Cradock · 11-02-2009 05:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

Pompey Magnus · 11-02-2009 05:37PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

Presumably Nodin is correctly pointing out that archaeology doesn't support any of the claims that the Gospels make about Jesus.

Nodin · 11-02-2009 05:37PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

I do, and thus would suggest your question would be best aimed elswhere.

Rev Hellfire · 11-02-2009 05:38PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

I think the issue is the belief that because the historical events in the NT can be collaborated that therefore those which can not must also be true.
That's the stance Brian seems to be taking taking.
While such collaborations perhaps strengthen the belief that the bible has a historical accuracy it does nothing to validate the supernatural claims it contains. And its those later claims which give the bible its significance.

Fanny Cradock · 11-02-2009 05:39PM

Charco wrote: »

Presumably Nodin is correctly pointing out that archaeology doesn't support any of the claims that the Gospels make about Jesus.

Fair enough.

Fanny Cradock · 12-02-2009 12:25AM

Apologies, Nodin. I didn't read your post properly and thought you were looking for archaeological evidence for those events. It's been a bad day for me.

BrianCalgary · 12-02-2009 12:32AM

Nodin wrote: »

NT, NT. Before wrathful hordes descend on thee..

Thanks for the correction.

Nodin wrote: »

Really? Why? Was it written entirely by Romans?..

No, but Rome was the dominant cultural influence at the time, with a healthy smattering of Greek.

Nodin wrote: »

None of them were written by eyewitnesses, as I understand it. Secondly, they catalogue the supernatural, in certain cases. This is obviously going to cause massive problems, because no-one in human history has catalogued and observed reproducable supernatural phenomena. Now you can of course just take it on faith. But thats a different kettle of fish entirely.?..

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul.

Supernatural power is not nor can it be reproducible. My knee has failed to have problems since it was healed with a prayer and faith. My daughters injury and recovery caused confusion amongst the doctors. Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders.

Nodin wrote: »

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

This kind of thing always reminds me of a scene from "D'arby O'Gill and the Little People". Yer man brings the leprachaun into the pub in a box. The barman looks in and gives the leprachaun a drink. He takes the empty glass out of the box, and leaves it up on the shelf - "proof" he says, that it happened.

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

BrianCalgary · 12-02-2009 12:35AM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think the issue is the belief that because the historical events in the NT can be collaborated that therefore those which can not must also be true.
That's the stance Brian seems to be taking taking.
While such collaborations perhaps strengthen the belief that the bible has a historical accuracy it does nothing to validate the supernatural claims it contains. And its those later claims which give the bible its significance.

Thanks Rev.

And that is how historical analysis is done. For any historicla event.

Is the author reliable? The items that can be shown to be true are they?
Corroborated accounts? Competeing accounts?

The gospels turn out to be very reliable when stacked up to historical analysis.

BrianCalgary · 12-02-2009 12:37AM

Charco wrote: »

This has been mentioned many times before when discussing the Gospels and the fact of the matter is that the anonymous authors of the Gospels themselves never claim to have known Jesus personally or to have been closely connected to any eyewinesses and they do not write as if they were present and took part in any of the events they describe..

Read prior post on gospel authorship.

Charco wrote: »

Well I used Gladiator as an example, I could have used The Godfather or Rambo or whatever. My point was that if the fictional stories were handed to a historian in the future he would not necessarily believe the main storyline to be fact just because it refers to contemporary historical events which can be verified as actually having happened.

Similarly for the Gospels. Just because they refer to real people and places which can be verified as being historically accurate it doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that the details which can't possible be verified are also true.

Why cant we trust them to be true?

Nodin · 12-02-2009 10:03AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apologies, Nodin. I didn't read your post properly and thought you were looking for archaeological evidence for those events. It's been a bad day for me.

These things happen.

If its any consolation, crap rolls down atheist hills in a similar fashon.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 11:13AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Thanks Rev. And that is how historical analysis is done. For any historicla event.

Is the author reliable? The items that can be shown to be true are they?
Corroborated accounts? Competeing accounts?

The gospels turn out to be very reliable when stacked up to historical analysis.

You forgot two important questions.
Who was the intended audience for the original text. And what was the reason for writing the text/what was the message the author wanted to get accross?

Especially the last one is important in regards to the Gospels.
The authors didn't intend to write a history of Jesus (if they had to do this they wouldn't have left out most of his life or only covered certain events of his ministry). They wanted to teach the new faith to belivers and possible converts.
It can't therefore be said that all Gospels are truthfully historical accounts.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 11:22AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul.

How do you fit the Q document into this?
Even if these persons are the authors, it still leaves a gap of events where they weren't present e.g. birth of Jesus so at least part of the Gospels can only be second hand accounts.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

Could you please specify which dates and persons were confirmed by archaeology? I would be especially interested in dates as the dating evidence around the birth of Crist is notoriously bad, as a tableau exists around that time in C14 dating so that dates can only be specified with a margin of errors of several decades.

PDN · 12-02-2009 11:43AM

mdebets wrote: »

You forgot two important questions.
Who was the intended audience for the original text. And what was the reason for writing the text/what was the message the author wanted to get accross?

Especially the last one is important in regards to the Gospels.
The authors didn't intend to write a history of Jesus (if they had to do this they wouldn't have left out most of his life or only covered certain events of his ministry). They wanted to teach the new faith to belivers and possible converts.
It can't therefore be said that all Gospels are truthfully historical accounts.

I'd agree with you up to that last sentence.

No history is written to give an impartial account of everything that occurred. Historians select events that suit their purposes which may be varied (to show the power of the Roman Empire, to demonstrate the evil of war, to promote an ideology etc.).

The Gospel writers obviously selected the material that served their purposes, but providing they selected genuine events, and fabricated nothing, then their Gospels would indeed be truthfully historical accounts.

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2009 11:47AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why cant we trust them to be true?

Because to accept the Gospels to be true historians would also be required to accept every supernatural event recorded in non-Christian sources as being true also, they can't make a special exception for Christian claims only.

If historians actually came out and said that it was an actual historical event that Jesus rose from the dead they would likewise have to say that it was an actual historical event that the god Augustus Caesar ascended into Heaven during the cremation of his mortal body, that Appolonius of Tyana actually rose from the dead at around the same time as Jesus did, and history books would record as fact that in 621 AD Muhammed flew up to Heaven on a winged horse to meet Jesus and other friends.

The Gospels are no more reliable than any other sources of supernatural claims, you can trust them if you like but historians cannot say they are anywhere near adequate to conclude with any certainty that the events described by them are historically true.

PDN · 12-02-2009 11:49AM

mdebets wrote: »

How do you fit the Q document into this?
Even if these persons are the authors, it still leaves a gap of events where they weren't present e.g. birth of Jesus so at least part of the Gospels can only be second hand accounts.

The hypothetical Q document may well have been a template used by the Synoptic Gospel writers. An eye witness will check his memories against the accounts of others who have written about the same events.

Nodin · 12-02-2009 11:53AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul..

John? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism

Matthew? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Mark - early, but still probably no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

About the only one in with a good shout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders...

Theres plenty of sources that say that x, y and z 'performed wonders'. They're taken with a grain of salt too.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

Regardless of the holes in that statement, consider this. Imagine you had an exact birth date and date of death for all the apostles, and Jesus. That leaves a vast amount to be filled in. You can't prove the water was turned into wine, the whole thing with the fishes, nor can you prove the the words ascribed to Jesus, are his, are a transliteration of his words etc and so on.

Its hard to pin down (nearly did a faux pas there) far better documented historical figures than Jesus, I might add, even those into the twentieth century.

PDN · 12-02-2009 11:54AM

Charco wrote: »

Because to accept the Gospels to be true historians would also be required to accept every supernatural event recorded in non-Christian sources as being true also, they can't make a special exception for Christian claims only.

If historians actually came out and said that it was an actual historical event that Jesus rose from the dead they would likewise have to say that it was an actual historical event that the god Augustus Caesar ascended into Heaven during the cremation of his mortal body, that Appolonius of Tyana actually rose from the dead at around the same time as Jesus did, and history books would record as fact that in 621 AD Muhammed flew up to Heaven on a winged horse to meet Jesus and other friends.

The Gospels are no more reliable than any other sources of supernatural claims, you can trust them if you like but historians cannot say they are anywhere near adequate to conclude with any certainty that the events described by them are historically true.

No, you are confining yourself to only two possible approaches where more exist. You are saying our options are:
1. Dismiss any ancient text that mentions the supernatural.
2. Accept all ancient texts that mention the supernatural.

However, a third option is possible, namely to compare texts which refer to supernatural accounts and assess their credibility.

Fanny Cradock · 12-02-2009 12:37PM

Nodin wrote: »

John? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism

Matthew? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Mark - early, but still probably no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

About the only one in with a good shout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 12:42PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders.

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Fanny Cradock · 12-02-2009 12:54PM

mdebets wrote: »

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Not proven, rather it is considered likely that there were additions made.

Pompey Magnus · 12-02-2009 01:09PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Is it up to critics to prove that anonymously written texts weren't written by people that later tradition attributes them to?

I can understand why critics may have to argue that the 6 disputed epistles of Paul were actually pseudonymous and not written by him at all, but I don't understand why the burden of proof should be on the critics in the case of the Gospels.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 01:10PM

PDN wrote: »

I'd agree with you up to that last sentence.

No history is written to give an impartial account of everything that occurred. Historians select events that suit their purposes which may be varied (to show the power of the Roman Empire, to demonstrate the evil of war, to promote an ideology etc.).

The Gospel writers obviously selected the material that served their purposes, but providing they selected genuine events, and fabricated nothing, then their Gospels would indeed be truthfully historical accounts.

I start with your last part. The selection of material from genuine events does not mean the resulting text is a truthfully historical account.
I have an example for this. Let's assume you have someone who committed a henious crime murdered e.g murdered someone in a brutal way. He goes to jail for his crime and becomes after a few years a born again Christian in jail ministers to other inmates in jail and becomes a really good guy.
You could now create a history of him only telling the part of his life where he is a murdere an paint him in as bad a light as possible. You could also write a history of him being a good Christian helping his follow men and an all around good guy.
Both histories are based on selected geniuine events. But are they truthfully historical accounts? On their own no. Taken together yes.

That's the problem with the Gospels if you look at them from the point of a historian. They are one sided. They only show the story through Christian-coloured glasses. They don't show the story from a non-Christian viewpoint and they are therefore biased.

If you add to this the way the human mind and memory works and that it is known that people tend to remember events differently to how they really heppened and the use of at least some second-hand accounts (even if the authors did know Jesus personally, not all of the events in the gospels can have been witnessed by them directly), it shows a clear picture that the Gospels are a 100% true account of Jesus' life.

That does however not mean that they are totally fabricated either.
Do I think they are the true accoun of Jesus' life, how it happened 2000 years ago? No.
Do I think the Gospels are based on true events? Yes.
Do I think that some of the stories might be close or even totally accurate? Probably.
Will it ever be able to proof this historically? No until someone builts a time-machine and travells back in time.

Just to make it clear. I don't think the Gospels are totally fabricated and some of the events happened in real life (otherwise I wouldn't call myself a Christian).
What I have a problem with is that the Gospels (and the rest of the bible) are seen as a 100% accurate account of what happened at that time and that history and archaeology will support this theory.
We can't prove all events about Augustus (who lived at the same time and has more surviving documents about him then Jesus), so why would we be able to prove Jesus' life much more accurate.
Everyone who tries to do this, has not understand the limitations of the study of written documents and material culture.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 01:16PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not proven, rather it is considered likely that there were additions made.

sorry I fell into the same trap I was arguing against in my other post.

I meant that it is the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. You can't really prove it unless you can travell back in time and watch Josephus write the original text.

Fanny Cradock · 12-02-2009 01:21PM

Charco wrote: »

Is it up to critics to prove that anonymously written texts weren't written by people that later tradition attributes them to?

I can understand why critics may have to argue that the 6 disputed epistles of Paul were actually pseudonymous and not written by him at all, but I don't understand why the burden of proof should be on the critics in the case of the Gospels.

You misunderstand what I mean by critic. I'm not talking about people who are criticising the Bible, I'm referring to people offering a reasoned analysis of it. I'm quite happy to let these people duke it out and look on from the side. However, it should still be noted that there are those who would still subscribe to the earliest Church traditions that apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors.

PDN · 12-02-2009 01:38PM

mdebets wrote: »

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

By outside sources, are you referring to sources outside the Bible? If so then the Egerton Gospel and 1 Clement spring to mind. Both of these are dated by most scholars as being contemporary with Josephus.

Nodin · 12-02-2009 02:00PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Well, theres a majority in the case of three amongst non-literalists, or so I gather. (The odds of a consensus being acheived overall in any such debate would be similar to that of moving a herd of cats a hundred or so strong by foot from Dublin to Belfast without losing one on the way.)

mdebets · 12-02-2009 02:08PM

PDN wrote: »

By outside sources, are you referring to sources outside the Bible? If so then the Egerton Gospel and 1 Clement spring to mind. Both of these are dated by most scholars as being contemporary with Josephus.

I don't know which outside sources BrianCalgery was mentioning.

Personally I would see the Egerton Gopel and 1 Clement (I never heard of them before and just know what Wikipedia says about them) still as too Christian.
They probably are slightly different totheir bias then the 4 main gospels (or otherwise they would be in the standard bibel) but they are still in essence Christian.
A proper outside source would be a Jewish or even better Roman or Greek historian. They would not start with the presumption that Jesus was the Christus. Therefore their story would be free of the need to show Jesus in a certain Christian way.
For example. If Jesus would have been married (not that I say he was, but just as an example) a Roman source could write that without any problem, while a Christian source might have wanted to hide the fact, as it would not fit into the general perception of him.
Outside sources would of course have their own bias e.g. a Roman source might show him as an outlaw, to justify is crucifiction. It would however allow a much better picture when taken together with the texts written from a Christian bias to get nearer the historical truth.

mdebets · 12-02-2009 02:12PM

PDN wrote: »

The hypothetical Q document may well have been a template used by the Synoptic Gospel writers. An eye witness will check his memories against the accounts of others who have written about the same events.

This again opens the question of how much is eyewitness acount and how much is down to the other written evidence cross-checked by the author and how much does the author trusts his own memory if his memory deviates from other written accounts?

Evidence for the Events in the NT

Comments