Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Gospels from a "Scholarly" view


Storm

Recommended Posts

I am involved in a thread on facebook that has been discussing the probability of Jesus having been given a proper burial. While that is not really the purpose of this post, one of the things that the original poster keeps stating is that the there are multiple individual attested sources that confirm the burial account of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. He continues to argue that the gospels, regardless of inspiration or not, are considered to be valid sources.

 

My question is: Are the gospels considered valid sources in the realm of scholarly and historical research and documentation?

 

Due to their anonymity, their not being first hand eyewitness reports, and the fact that most scholars attribute much of what Matthew and Luke wrote to Mark's gospel, as well as the plausibility that the author of John may have (or likely) had knowledge of Mark's gospel, due to being written so much later in the century,  I contend that the gospels are not valid sources. Is my sentiment shared in the academic and scholarly world in general?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical scholars, not apologist, generally classify the Gospels as theological myths. Historians have yet to find any witnesses to anything written in the Bible. And there is no independent historical record of anyone ever having any encounter with Jesus, thus there is no record of a historical Jesus.

 

People that believe Jesus was a real person are usually referencing apologist not historians. Dr. Robert M. Price is a good scholar to reference for these questions. 

 

Not only is Jesus likely a literary character, it seems the Apostle Paul is too. Like Jesus, there is no historical Paul. The historical evidence suggest the entire Bible is a collection of theological myths, none of that stuff actually happened. You will never convince a Christian of that though no matter how much evidence scholars produce. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Storm said:

While that is not really the purpose of this post, one of the things that the original poster keeps stating is that the there are multiple individual attested sources that confirm the burial account of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.  

 

 

Very funny.  Maybe you should ask to see the burial account by Joseph of Arimathea.  Nobody has ever heard of him outside of the Gospel stories.

 

Basically I agree with Geezer except that since "Apostle Paul" is a name somebody gave himself, like a pen name, then the very first person who used it was the original Paul even if his life was nothing like what he claimed.  Certainly many works attributed to Paul are forgeries and Paul became a legend himself in the book of Acts and other Christian writings that failed to become Biblical cannon.

 

Also historians need to compensate for two trends.  The early Catholic church destroyed almost any Christian work that did not fit their agenda.  Later when they had power the Catholic church would execute anybody who offered ideas that threatened the Catholic church.  When such an execution took place they would also destroy all written works and kill any follower who wouldn't recant.  That is why every historian from 500 ad - 1800 ad held that Jesus was historical.  You were erased if you held a different opinion.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an historian, so I can't say for sure, but it seems relatively obvious to me that secular scholars do not consider the gospels to be entirely historically accurate. If they did, they would be Christians.

 

It is possible, though, for there to be some actual historical value in sources which are generally considered to be either largely fiction or myth. I think (and I'm sure that some of our more historically knowledgeable members will correct me here if I'm wrong) that it's a false dichotomy to try and insist that the gospels are either valid historical sources or they aren't. They may be valid in some respects, but not in others.

 

One thing is certain though: very few historians consider that the gospels are first hand, eyewitness accounts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Very funny.  Maybe you should ask to see the burial account by Joseph of Arimathea.  Nobody has ever heard of him outside of the Gospel stories.

 

Basically I agree with Geezer except that since "Apostle Paul" is a name somebody gave himself, like a pen name, then the very first person who used it was the original Paul even if his life was nothing like what he claimed.  Certainly many works attributed to Paul are forgeries and Paul became a legend himself in the book of Acts and other Christian writings that failed to become Biblical cannon.

 

Also historians need to compensate for two trends.  The early Catholic church destroyed almost any Christian work that did not fit their agenda.  Later when they had power the Catholic church would execute anybody who offered ideas that threatened the Catholic church.  When such an execution took place they would also destroy all written works and kill any follower who wouldn't recant.  That is why every historian from 500 ad - 1800 ad held that Jesus was historical.  You were erased if you held a different opinion.

 

Validation for MM's thoughts about the Apostle Paul can be found in Hermann Deterings book The Fabricated Paul. His book presents evidence that suggest Paul was a fictional character. Robert Price believes Marcion wrote the Epistles attributed to Paul and used the pen name Saul/Paul of Tarus. 

 

Robert Price book The Colossal Apostle addresses this issue in great detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mymistake said:

Also historians need to compensate for two trends.  The early Catholic church destroyed almost any Christian work that did not fit their agenda.  Later when they had power the Catholic church would execute anybody who offered ideas that threatened the Catholic church.  When such an execution took place they would also destroy all written works and kill any follower who wouldn't recant.  That is why every historian from 500 ad - 1800 ad held that Jesus was historical.  You were erased if you held a different opinion.

This is something I have thought of in the past, but needed to be reminded of. The funnel of the Catholic church and how it pruned history. Good point. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I'm not an historian, so I can't say for sure, but it seems relatively obvious to me that secular scholars do not consider the gospels to be entirely historically accurate. If they did, they would be Christians.

 

It is possible, though, for there to be some actual historical value in sources which are generally considered to be either largely fiction or myth. I think (and I'm sure that some of our more historically knowledgeable members will correct me here if I'm wrong) that it's a false dichotomy to try and insist that the gospels are either valid historical sources or they aren't. They may be valid in some respects, but not in others.

 

One thing is certain though: very few historians consider that the gospels are first hand, eyewitness accounts.

It's funny that you stated this, because I often tell people the world isn't black and white, but mostly gray. I certainly was stuck thinking in black and white in this situation. I certainly understand that there is some historical accuracy in the gospels, but there are also inaccuracies. Then there's the completely made up stuff, which @Geezer mentions. 

 

Of  course, the debate goes on about how much was accurate based on whether you're a believer or not. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Storm said:

It's funny that you stated this, because I often tell people the world isn't black and white, but mostly gray. I certainly was stuck thinking in black and white in this situation. I certainly understand that there is some historical accuracy in the gospels, but there are also inaccuracies. Then there's the completely made up stuff, which @Geezer mentions. 

 

Of  course, the debate goes on about how much was accurate based on whether you're a believer or not. 

 

 

Some of the geography of the NT is right.  But the "sea" of Galilee isn't a sea.  It's a lake.  And it wasn't called "anything" of Galilee at the time.  All the other cultures of the era had different names for that lake.  The name "Sea of Galilee" was invented by the author of Mark and it stuck because Christianity persisted.  I've heard that the Gospel of Mark is particularly bad with geography and it's led some to believe that it's author had never visited the land.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
32 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Some of the geography of the NT is right.  But the "sea" of Galilee isn't a sea.  It's a lake.  And it wasn't called "anything" of Galilee at the time.  All the other cultures of the era had different names for that lake.  The name "Sea of Galilee" was invented by the author of Mark and it stuck because Christianity persisted.  I've heard that the Gospel of Mark is particularly bad with geography and it's led some to believe that it's author had never visited the land.

 

 

I've read the same. I'd have to dig to find citation, though. The gospels are clearly written in Greek by people far removed from the time and place of early first century Palestine. The geography ignorance is one such clue, among many others.

 

Nazareth itself is another one. Rene Salm pretty much introduced that one:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Nazareth-Invented-Town-Jesus/dp/1578840031 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A true Bible scholar will confirm the Bible's stories are just that "Stories". They were not written as an accurate historical record of anything.

 

Dr. John Dominic Crossan notes the Gospels are book length Parables & should be read in that context. It should be obvious to even a novice reader of the OT that they are reading mythical stories. And for the most part they aren't even original stories. They were taken from other cultures & modified. Even the Jesus story isn't original. Dying & rising Gods with a Deity as a father & a human virgin female as a mother were rather common stories & existed in many ancient cultures.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Rene Salm pretty much introduced that one

 

It is interesting to read the reviews on Amazon for all such books. People are clearly entrenched, even those who are archaeologists. Believers are convinced it is all true and look for things that verify it. Atheists are convinced it isn't real, and present their findings only to have believer archaeologists dismiss their findings and quotations of other unbelievers as "an agenda", and state categorically that their own findings are fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Fuego said:

 

It is interesting to read the reviews on Amazon for all such books. People are clearly entrenched, even those who are archaeologists. Believers are convinced it is all true and look for things that verify it. Atheists are convinced it isn't real, and present their findings only to have believer archaeologists dismiss their findings and quotations of other unbelievers as "an agenda", and state categorically that their own findings are fact.

 

 

That is why evidence and logic are so important.  That is how we tell who has the agenda and who is following the facts.  Research both sides, get to the bottom of things and one side will have a bad foundation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark's Gospel, in its original form, was a play ... which was probably performed before a sophisticated, knowledgeable audience.

 

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

The above scene describes vast numbers of people experiencing a complete change of consciousness

 

When, after being baptised by John, a voice spoke to Jesus out of the sky: "You are my beloved son, in whom I WAS well pleased" (which is what some scholars claim the Greek means) it was to be understood that the voice was that of Jesus' DECEASED FATHER! (i.e. not God).

 

At Gethsemane Jesus tells his followers that he is going to pray to his father and wants to be alone ... so, presumably that's where his father was supposed to be buried. There is a Greek word that reads very similar to Gethseane that means "a place where voices speak from out of the ground" (i.e. a graveyard ...it is commonplace for people to claim to hear the voice of the deceased when they visit their grave).

 

The author is presenting Jesus as an actual King of The Jews ... who doesn't have a particularly good opinion of the Jewish religion as it was then being practiced.

 

Is the play based upon someone who actually lived ... or is it a fictional story-line? (A sort of: What if the King of the Jews was a Romano-Greek in his religious outlook?). 

 

Finally ... in the original this central character, the King of the Jews, may have had a different name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SeniorCitizen007 said:

Mark's Gospel, in its original form, was a play ... which was probably performed before a sophisticated, knowledgeable audience.

 

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

The above scene describes vast numbers of people experiencing a complete change of consciousness

 

When, after being baptised by John, a voice spoke to Jesus out of the sky: "You are my beloved son, in whom I WAS well pleased" (which is what some scholars claim the Greek means) it was to be understood that the voice was that of Jesus' DECEASED FATHER! (i.e. not God).

 

At Gethsemane Jesus tells his followers that he is going to pray to his father and wants to be alone ... so, presumably that's where his father was supposed to be buried. There is a Greek word that reads very similar to Gethseane that means "a place where voices speak from out of the ground" (i.e. a graveyard ...it is commonplace for people to claim to hear the voice of the deceased when they visit their grave).

 

The author is presenting Jesus as an actual King of The Jews ... who doesn't have a particularly good opinion of the Jewish religion as it was then being practiced.

 

Is the play based upon someone who actually lived ... or is it a fictional story-line? (A sort of: What if the King of the Jews was a Romano-Greek in his religious outlook?). 

 

Finally ... in the original this central character, the King of the Jews, may have had a different name.

This is interesting. To be honest though, I struggle with whether or not what you are saying really is true. I am not saying you are or aren't, I just have trouble reconciling it.

 

I have seen references to Acts being an epic in the lines of Homer's Odyssey. I suspect that would also apply to Luke's gospel as well, since they are a two part series. But if Mark was indeed a play, maybe that would lend credence to how or why Luke wrote his epic(s).  Maybe @ficino can chime in on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeniorCitizen007 said:

Mark's Gospel, in its original form, was a play ... which was probably performed before a sophisticated, knowledgeable audience.

 

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

The above scene describes vast numbers of people experiencing a complete change of consciousness

 

When, after being baptised by John, a voice spoke to Jesus out of the sky: "You are my beloved son, in whom I WAS well pleased" (which is what some scholars claim the Greek means) it was to be understood that the voice was that of Jesus' DECEASED FATHER! (i.e. not God).

 

At Gethsemane Jesus tells his followers that he is going to pray to his father and wants to be alone ... so, presumably that's where his father was supposed to be buried. There is a Greek word that reads very similar to Gethseane that means "a place where voices speak from out of the ground" (i.e. a graveyard ...it is commonplace for people to claim to hear the voice of the deceased when they visit their grave).

 

The author is presenting Jesus as an actual King of The Jews ... who doesn't have a particularly good opinion of the Jewish religion as it was then being practiced.

 

Is the play based upon someone who actually lived ... or is it a fictional story-line? (A sort of: What if the King of the Jews was a Romano-Greek in his religious outlook?). 

 

Finally ... in the original this central character, the King of the Jews, may have had a different name.

 

Religious history is a hobby of mine. I've read a wide range of historical scholars & I've never encounter this theory before. May I ask for your source for this origin of Mark? I would very much like to read it. And welcome to the board. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon of Cyrene , I surmise, is supposed to be understood as being Simon bar Kokba, the "messianic" leader of the 131 AD revolt by the Jews against the Romans. Simon of Cyrene is described as having two sons, Alexander, and Rufus ... Simon bar Kpkba also had a son called Rufus. As for Cyrene ... there was a major revolt by the Jews of Cyrene in 116 AD. The 131 revolt can be seen as an extension of this.

 

My studies suggest to me that the story was written in the 130s AD with the story-line set a hundred years earlier ... a technique that is frequently used in modern politically motivated fiction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2018 at 12:31 PM, Storm said:

I am involved in a thread on facebook that has been discussing the probability of Jesus having been given a proper burial. While that is not really the purpose of this post, one of the things that the original poster keeps stating is that the there are multiple individual attested sources that confirm the burial account of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. He continues to argue that the gospels, regardless of inspiration or not, are considered to be valid sources.

 

My question is: Are the gospels considered valid sources in the realm of scholarly and historical research and documentation?

 

Due to their anonymity, their not being first hand eyewitness reports, and the fact that most scholars attribute much of what Matthew and Luke wrote to Mark's gospel, as well as the plausibility that the author of John may have (or likely) had knowledge of Mark's gospel, due to being written so much later in the century,  I contend that the gospels are not valid sources. Is my sentiment shared in the academic and scholarly world in general?

 

"Are the gospels considered valid sources in the realm of scholarly and historical research and documentation?"

 

By historians? No. That's why there are special departments in academia, usually called "history of religions" or "history of Christianity," that operate completely separate from History departments. 

 

The problem starts on the rare occasions that real historians write about Biblical figures. Most notable example: Michael Grant's "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" (Scribner's, 1977). The subtitle of the book highlights what a novelty it is that a historian -- for once, not a theologian -- is writing about this subject. But Grant, like all historians who wade into these waters, makes a serious error in methodology: he relies on theologians for sources and interpretations, as if they were unbiased. Thus, he regurgitates a lot of apologetic nonsense without even being conscious of it, because it sounds reasonable. Of course it does. The main objective of all Christian apologetics is to make their myths sound logical and reasonable. One could rationalize any ancient myth. "Apollo was not really a sun god; folk legend grew around a real person who owned a tanning salon, and became venerated after his death."

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

History-like writing is not the same as history writing. Stories about the past are not history. This is where people get screwed up. 

 

The only thing that tethers the Gospel of Mark to any resemblance to historical writing is the presence of a real Roman political figure, Pontius Pilate. This one clever trick fools the reader into thinking that the author is an "historian" when he was absolutely nothing of the sort. He was a philosophical theologian. You take Pontius Pilate out of the Gospel of Mark, and the whole thing reads like one of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Imagine if "Cinderella" included an exchange between Cinderella and the Holy Roman Emperor Barbarossa. We would no longer think of the story as a mere fairy tale, when, in reality, the addition of a real person to the story was simply part of the fiction.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blood said:

History-like writing is not the same as history writing. Stories about the past are not history. This is where people get screwed up. 

 

The only thing that tethers the Gospel of Mark to any resemblance to historical writing is the presence of a real Roman political figure, Pontius Pilate. This one clever trick fools the reader into thinking that the author is an "historian" when he was absolutely nothing of the sort. He was a philosophical theologian. You take Pontius Pilate out of the Gospel of Mark, and the whole thing reads like one of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Imagine if "Cinderella" included an exchange between Cinderella and the Holy Roman Emperor Barbarossa. We would no longer think of the story as a mere fairy tale, when, in reality, the addition of a real person to the story was simply part of the fiction.  

 

 

Reminds me of the modern trend of including a famous news anchor playing himself in a disaster movie.  He reads the news about fictional events and it add flavor to the story.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.