Why did Gospel writers care so little for history?

Like what? Archeology and extra-Biblical history generally has confirmed much of the historical details in the New Testament.

A few examples:

The foundations of the Jewish Temple Mount built by Herod the Great still stand in Jerusalem.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is also considered a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ. These sites were covered over (and thus, preserved) by the Romans in the second century AD.

On the Sea of Galilee, towns such as Nazareth are still active. Capernaum and Chorazin, two sites Jesus visited often, have been excavated and preserved.

Mount of Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) and Caesarea Philippi (Peter's confession) are all preserved as reliable historical sites.

Luke, who wrote about one-quarter of the New Testament, is considered a very accurate historian. A famous athiest archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, wrote about Luke:

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

Ramsay didn't stay an atheist.

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas which have proven true.

Paul's writings have also been found to be historically accurate.

For example, in the Book of Acts, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Again, archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ." Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time of Paul's visit there in 51 AD.

In short the historical accuracy of the New Testament was under doubt just 150 years ago, but more recent discoveries have validated the accuracy.

Of course, historical accuracy doesn't necessarily prove the underlying theology, but it is still powerful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cris,

Don’t you see what you (and many of you) are doing? By quoting Acharya, you are putting your faith in her book – because you want to believe. It takes a lot of “faith” to believe Acharya. Do you think perhaps before you put your faith in a book that you should examine its trustworthiness? Just as you demand of Christians?

Her actual name is D. Murdock. Her works are not considered scholarly by true scholars of antiquity, religions, archeology, or even astrology. There has been little critical review of her works because its so bad it just isn’t worth the time or ink.

Noel Swerdlow is Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago: “in truth what this woman is claiming is so wacky that it is hardly worth answering”

Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. "If someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at least read a religion 101 course."

Should I go on? I can. But I’m not sure I care to spend the time or ink either.

She is wrong on Tacitus. She is wrong on Josephus. She is wrong on Pliny. On Paul’s letters she is wrong. She is wrong on the persecution and murder of early Christians. She is wrong on other religions as well. She is wrong on the Masons. In fact she is flat wrong on everything and obviously she has an axe to grind.

You folks are quick to condemn the Bible as false mythology. But think about it. You are writing in a science forum. As scientists you are supposed to take an objective view, weighing the evidence, and all of the evidence even if it doesn’t conform to your preconceived notions. Yet you blindly ignore anything you don’t want to hear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Examples please, sounds like a bunch of wild charges & accusations without them

 

Good points Revolvr! The atheists often WANT to disbelieve the gospels as badly as the Christians want to believe them.

Leading them to blindly embrace spurious new agey authors without any background check on their academic credentials.

WANTING to believe or disbelieve is always the wrong approach to truth...regardless of whether its science, archeology, history, or indeed any subject.

 

I chose to disbelieve as I think its a waste of energy and time, i'd rather try to enjoy as much of my life as possible and live a good life, I dont steal nor have i ever committed adultery, but that's down to self morals rather than rules in a book, so i'd rather be like me than let religion suck me in and control me, and i'm a stronger person for it... If you look at a lot of the people who turn to religion its when they are at their weakest point in life when they have nowhere else to turn, and I can tell you right now that will never happen to me.

Regarding the history, well its all just one big fabricated lie, which happens to be against their religion to lie apparently, unless they make a new testament and rub more verses out of it, named the new new testament.

 

I am not saying everything in the Gospels is historically inaccurate. But, the fact that there are historical inaccuracies raises concerns in my mind about the accuracy of the Gospels in toto. Obvious inaccurracies are the contradictions between the Gospels themselves. E.G. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Other portions of the Gospel are fictionalized to conform to accepted prophesy, such as Jesus' manger birth and his genealogy from King David. Jesus' quote on the cross of "My God. My God. Why have you forsaken me?" is lifted directly from Old Testament Psalm 22. Why would Gospel writers risk the credibility of their books by inventing facts?

 

Revolvr,

re: Acharya –

It is to be expected that there is and will be a severe and emotional backlash towards her research and she has been and will be continuously vehemently vilified by the Christians. But if you read her book you will find an exhaustive degree of precision, verification, and impartial references. For anyone who can read her findings objectively they will have immense difficulty finding fault with the rather obvious conclusions – Christianity is an immense fraud.

 

We treat the bible as TRUE mythology

 

ok this is a bit of a non-answer... i would characterize this quoted portion above as maybe a step or two above "they started it, that's why"... and it doesn't answer the basic question...

if you care nothing for the bible, and it's nonsense, and the like... why would anyone care enough to go into criticizing it?...

for just one example, i could care less about the books written by Shirley Maclaine, i find them to be nonsense... i wouldn't endeavor to even address the stuff... in fact in literal truth this is the first time in my life i have ever typed/mentioned her name in this way, or mentioned her books, on the internet or IRL, and i did this only for the sake of example...

if i was spending my time going into critiques of her material as nonsense and baseless stuff, repeatedly making what i thought were clever forays into dissecting her ideas, and the tenants of spirituality she espouses, if i spent time lampooning those who follow her ideas as profound spirituality, who think her so enlightened...

if i did these things and etc... anyone with a modicum of wisdom would know something was up, i was protesting too much, there was more to the issue than me merely finding her works nonsense... i may use the fact that she writes best selling novels, or has many people who follow her advice and tenants and etc. as some excuse for my oddly focused energy on trying to 'shoot her down'... but there is no escaping how odd, telling, and out of place my use of my time and energy focusing on her stuff would be... even though i may delude myself, anyone with any real intelligence would see through it...

in your case more directly, if 'they'(Christians) are trying to influence public policy, for instance, then it is merely a political action concern... one may start a political action committee of their own, to counter the political influence, they might not vote for candidates and representatives who subscribed to that stuff... etc... there simply is no logical or meaningful reason to begin on some critical analysis of the book/books of the religion...

now you completely avoid my point, which is, i see almost no intelligent and well informed criticism of the bible... it is always done by those who are almost completely ignorant of the text... and this from scientists, so often, who espouse 'peer review by informed colleagues' as requirements to validate their ideas... yet this same crowd suddenly finds completely ignorant criticism of a thing like the bible as 'perfectly reasonable'... a painfully obvious, and complete contradiction of motives, logic, and methods... it sticks out like a sore thumb...

"unlike most Christians i thought about religion" true, most don't...

but anyone who has actually studied the bible knows full well it is an anti-religion book... the simple fact is... MOST, 99% of the 'religious', the 'Christians', church goers of every flavor, have never studied the book... a smaller percentage than that of 'critics have actually read the stuff...

"growing up in a Christian ethos" sounds more like you have unresolved issues with your family dynamic, and parents, than anything to do with the actual text of, and teachings in, the bible... and this flavour of 'justification' is what you find most of the time in this 'anti bible' type of approach... it's odd, out of place, illogical, and telling...

"why waste further time on the bible"? ironic you point out my simple assertion for me... why are you "wasting time" posting about something you claim to be nonsense?

and please, no more "because they started it" circular logic...

so people "who believe they have all the answers because they have studied a copy of their holy book"... is why people engage in VERY poorly informed, frankly almost completely ignorant of the subject matter, criticism?... putting out such energy and time 'shooting down' the bible... again it's more of a "because they started it" type of idea... like a dad may hear as a response to "don't make me stop this car"... "they started it" comes from the back seat...

that is nonsense and another non-answer...

you might think a bit on what you describe as 'unneeded' advice... particularly with me seeing the things you so confidently state the bible 'says' on various topics...

(note: i cleaned up the edit you did, as to keep tags consistent, and enhance readability and the flow of ideas)

 

What obvious inaccuracies and contradictions are you talking about? Don’t just state something as fact; let’s see some examples. The items you see as fictionalized are not especially strong arguments.

It is not at all outside the realm of probability that Jesus was born in a manger. His folks had nowhere to stay and the baby’s coming. It isn’t as if there were a Marriott near by or they could take a cab to the nearest hospital. I know a guy who was born in a car; unusual but not enough for me to doubt his existence.

We’ve already covered the Bethlehem vs. Nazareth issue. How about the genealogy? What do you find so wrong with it? Don’t tell me it’s that Matthew and Luke use different names?

That Jesus would quote Hebrew scripture is not at all unexpected. Obviously he was very schooled in scripture, he quotes it frequently. Usually he begins with “It is written that…” followed by the scripture and an explanation of it in the context of the new covenant. I wouldn’t be hanging on a cross saying “It is written…”.

 

Anyone who does scholarly work should expect to face criticism from her peers. It’s part of the Scientific Method. She of course dismisses all criticism as emotional backlash by Christians. But in fact the people I quoted – a small sample, do not have agendas. Many of her critics are not Christians or Jews. They are recognized experts in their fields and carry a lot of weight.

Much of the criticism of her work is just too easy. It is very easy for example, to show she quotes the Old Testament out of context. All one has to do is go read. She says for another example, that “nowhere in all the writings of Justin Martyr, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels.” But all one has to do is actually read Justin, and we find he does indeed refer to them and quote them. Just read it! She also makes assertions she doesn’t back up with anything. Simple Simple Simple.

You should actually be concerned about the LACK of critical examination (either pro or con). Serious scholars simply do not pay attention to her work for obvious reasons. She is the Eric von Daniken of mythology (He’s the Ancient Astronauts guy who claims aliens visited our ancestors).

Look also at how she handles criticism. She goes immediately to polemics and ad hominem attacks and claiming these skeptics don’t know what they are talking about when they are clearly recognized experts. Taking things so personally is not a sign of a credible scientist.

You lose credibility by quoting Murdock. You may certainly dismiss my views and the views of most other scholars. But it only demonstrates a closed mind.

 

*************
M*W: And what history book are YOU reading?

 

*************
M*W: And that's exactly how it sould be treated! It's a load of crap, and look at all those "xians" who believe in that crapola. It's utterly disgusting!

 

But...people who follow one idealogy that conflicts with another die all the time at their hands of their 'enemy'.

 

The hoax I refer to is of course Jesus’ resurrection. All of the New Testament authors claim to have seen Jesus after his resurrection. Extra-Biblical sources, non-sympathetic Jewish sources, acknowledge Jesus’ tomb was empty. But of course these sources assume the Apostles had removed and hid the body. Hence the hoax.

Without the resurrection, Jesus was just a brilliant scholar with a new interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures (or a blaspheming rebel); not the Son of God. But those believers all save one who was banished, knowingly went to their deaths as did many of the 500 others who witnessed Jesus after his resurection. Would they perpetrate a hoax by removing Jesus’ body as the Jews believed, then allow themselves to be tortured and murdered for the hoax? Of course not! What does one have to gain by dying for a known lie?

Now we’ve come full circle back to the original question on historical accuracy. This is why people like Murdock must try to prove the entire New Testament is a hoax – that none of this happened! If one believes it is historically accurate, one becomes compelled beyond a reasonable doubt to also believe Jesus was resurrected. But Murdock and others are forced to ignore or discount 40 some-odd extra-Biblical and self-consistent references that corroborate the New Testament, and forced to ignore the historical accuracy of Luke, Paul and others, and forced to ignore the archaeological evidence. It becomes a vast conspiracy even more complex and improbable than the "911 Truther's" notion the government imploded the WTC.

 

The manger story is quite fanciful. Since when do stars guide followers to exact geographic points? Since when do babies laying in a manger get gifts from wise men? You would think the wise men aghast at the surrounding of the child would have put him up in a hotel. With enough money, you can buy anything. Do you really think Herod would so fear a baby of a commoner, that he would put it to death? The fleeing to Eygpt story was concocted to make Jesus appear like Moses. Even Jesus' mother is given the same name as Moses' mother, i.e. Mary or Meriam. And let's not forget, the virgin birth. Since when does God inseminate women? This is a story to make God look like Zeus, and Jesus look like Hercules. True, I can't absolutely exclude the possibility that these things really happened. However, the Gospels weren't written by the Apostles, were they? Where did the Gospel writers get their information? Indeed, they were written after the Apostles were dead. Who could contradict them?