Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should we consider the New Testament to be historically accurate or a collection of legends? I'm using what I believe is the corect meaning of "legend," a story in which some of the main characters are real and some of the events are historical but many are not. As in the legend of Davy Crockett, a real character who was ulimately killed at the Alamo, but things like killing a bear when he was only three is very doubtful.
Here is a good summation of the question by a well known Catholic historian. Opinions???
Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-18-2015 at 05:33 PM..
Aristotle's Child, you may want to keep in mind the people and places mentioned in Scripture are real people and real places.
For example: Please notice the real people named at Luke 3:1-2
2nd Timothy 3:16-17 says ALL Scripture is inspired by God and notice in those verses what the Scriptures are good and useful for.
The gospel accounts are Not meant to be separate but one gospel according to four writers.
They complement each other to give us a complete picture about the life of Jesus.
Perhaps Bokenknotter should point out what is not accurate.
Please remember that Elvis was spotted thousands of times after his death all over the United States by hundreds of thousands of people. And this all started a few days after his funeral. And remember too we have videos of some of these sightings---proof positive Elvis resurrected. Next to Elvis Jesus was small potatoes.
Should we consider the New Testament to be historically accurate or a collection of legends. I'm using what I believe is the corect meaning of "legend," a story in which some of the main characters are real and some of the events are historical but many are not. As in the legend of Davy Crockett, a real character who was ulimately killed at the Alamo, but things like killing a bear when he was only three is very doubtful.
Here is a good summation of the question by a well known Catholic historian. Opinions???
Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
Of course it's accurate. Bokenkotter has a point, in that the Gospel writers did not concern themselves with a chronological listing of events, but they were certainly accurate in their telling of the events. It isn't surprising that Bokenkotter has a low view of Scripture, though.
Should we consider the New Testament to be historically accurate or a collection of legends? I'm using what I believe is the corect meaning of "legend," a story in which some of the main characters are real and some of the events are historical but many are not. As in the legend of Davy Crockett, a real character who was ulimately killed at the Alamo, but things like killing a bear when he was only three is very doubtful.
Here is a good summation of the question by a well known Catholic historian. Opinions???
Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
They are accurate. What specifically his problem may be is not known unless someone can give a specific case he feels is not accurate.
Remember the denied Pilate existed and then oops proof he did and the NT was accurate about him. Then a change in title for one official and oops evidence showed the Nt got it right and opponents of the NT were wrong..
Of course each of the Gospels had an intended audience (primarily the Jews for Matthew and the gentiles for Luke, for example) and the New Testament has an overall message and mission that transcends history, but this is no reason to supposed that the New Testament is not, to an extraordinary degree, historically accurate. The quote by Father Bokenkotter could be taken in a number of ways; to some extent what he says may be true, but certainly not if he is intending to suggest that the Jesus of history is largely an invention. One very valuable, scholarly book that may assist you in thinking through these issues is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham. I always find that five hours spent with a book like this is far more productive than any discussion I'm likely to have on an Internet forum, particularly when the subject is one about which there is considerable debate among scholars of the highest caliber. At least when you read Bauckham's book, you won't be interrupted at the end of every paragraph by some troll talking about Elvis!
They are accurate. What specifically his problem may be is not known unless someone can give a specific case he feels is not accurate.
Remember the denied Pilate existed and then oops proof he did and the NT was accurate about him. Then a change in title for one official and oops evidence showed the Nt got it right and opponents of the NT were wrong..
RESPONSE:
Keep in mind if there is a contradiction, only one alternative is correct. But sometimes, both alternatives are incorrect.
Let’s take a look at a few contradictions from the New Testament.
1. Was Jesus born during the lifetime of King Herod the Great (d. 4 BC) [Matthew]or during the census of Judea conducted by he Roman Syrian governor Quirinius in 6 AD? [Luke].
2. Was Jesus crucified on the Passover [Matthew, Mark and Luke] or the day before Passover [John]?
3. Did Jesus send for and ride two different animals of different sizes when he entered Jerusalem so he could fulfill a prophecy [Matthew] or did he ride one animal in the conventional manner [Mark, Luke, and John]
4. Did Jesus ascend into heaven on the evening of the day he was Resurrected [Luke] or forty days later [Acts of the Apostles]?
5. Following his Resurrection, did Jesus and Apostles remain in Jerusalem or did travel to Galilee a three day journey away?
6. Did Jesus have his head or feet anointed by a women, a sinful women (prostitute?), or the sister of Lazarus?
Are each of these really historical events? Or just different stories?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-18-2015 at 06:55 PM..
Reason: typo
I was going to stay out of this one, but your last post posed a persistent problem in this area.
Do discrepancies mean unreliable testimony or are they understandable witness error and -as is often pointed out - proof that they were not colluding but telling their own stories?
Well, sure they were doing that, but the two donkeys ones is a good example of how eyewitness testimony does not wash. If Matthew had been there, how could he possibly have said there were two donkeys when it is clear that the others say there was only one. Well, we know why. because Matthew related the story back to the OT prophecy and misinterpreted 'An ass, that is, upon the foal of an ass' as 'an ass and also upon the foal of an ass'. This is a small but telling indication that he cannot be an eyewitness.
The one about the penitent woman is another one of the many, many. On the head or feet and before the ride to the temple or after? The three others juggle about with the story quite enough but Luke shifts his to Galilee and makes the host of Jesus some kind of sinning penitent.
Well, our posting pal Eusebius, who is the toughest debator I know, argued that they are two similar -sounding but different events. To which I say, if that was the case, even if we can swallow that nobody else of the synoptics mentioned the Galilee event, how can we explain that Luke does not mention the one in Bethany?
The conclusion is that Luke shifted and re-wrote that bit of the story. Individuals have to decide, but I'd say the conclusion is amply supported by the circumstances. Luke had the same story as the others and fiddled it just as they did - but far more radically. This is not historical accuracy. What is historical acuracy is found though asking just what it was about this story that requires so much re-writing.
P.s the same applies to the other examples you give. For instance the point about going to Galilee or staying in Jerusalem is underlined by Luke altering the angel's message so that the disciples are not told to go to Galilee. That rather undermine the explanation that the disciples went to Galilee and came back. The 40 days of regular visits and lectures by Jesus was in addition to greeting them on the mountain (Matthew) or on the seashore (John). Where the disciples are taking up their old fishing jobs and don't appear to be expecting Jesus to turn up at all. The reason is that John doesn't have an angel telling them to go to Galilee at all. His angels turn up later to rather pointlessly ask Mary why she is upset.
This is not eyewitness discrepancy. This is unhistorical fabrication.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-18-2015 at 08:44 PM..
Of course each of the Gospels had an intended audience (primarily the Jews for Matthew and the gentiles for Luke, for example) and the New Testament has an overall message and mission that transcends history, but this is no reason to supposed that the New Testament is not, to an extraordinary degree, historically accurate. The quote by Father Bokenkotter could be taken in a number of ways; to some extent what he says may be true, but certainly not if he is intending to suggest that the Jesus of history is largely an invention. One very valuable, scholarly book that may assist you in thinking through these issues is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham. I always find that five hours spent with a book like this is far more productive than any discussion I'm likely to have on an Internet forum, particularly when the subject is one about which there is considerable debate among scholars of the highest caliber. At least when you read Bauckham's book, you won't be interrupted at the end of every paragraph by some troll talking about Elvis!
AHEM..........we take our Elvis sightings very serious around here!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the two donkeys ones is a good example of how eyewitness testimony does not wash. If Matthew had been there, how could he possibly have said there were two donkeys when it is clear that the others say there was only one. Well, we know why. because Matthew related the story back to the OT prophecy and misinterpreted 'An ass, that is, upon the foal of an ass' as 'an ass and also upon the foal of an ass'. This is a small but telling indication that he cannot be an eyewitness.
