The Bible as a Historical Source

[ASCLEPIADES]

Probably the Gospels are a not very reliable source for the study of Roman law. For example, the Roman governor's release of a prisoner on the crowd's choice (ie Barabbas, in Mark 15:6; Matthew 27:15; Luke 23:17 and John 18:39) is, as far as I understand, simply nonsense.

The common interpretation that I have seen about the "Jewish autonomy" in the Gospels is the double goal (by Pauline influence) of relieving the Romans from the blame of Jesus' death (for acceptance and conversion purposes) and, consequently, giving it to the Jews (as a punishment for not recognizing the coming of the Messiah)..

[M. Porcius Cato]

Probably the Gospels are a not very reliable source for the study of Roman law.

In the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I agree. Judging by outside evidence, however, John is much more reliable about historically verifiable matters than the other three, and since the four narratives were each presented as a coherent whole, it's not possible to pick and choose from each of the books. In any case, rules of thumb like "the gospels were meant to portray the Romans in a favorable light" don't tell us anything about historical accuracy, and the books of the Bible (as well as Josephus) occasionally provide unique information that is (at least in principle) verifiable. Finally, I'd much prefer to rely on John's record of what the Romans actually did than to rely on worthless generalities like "the Romans did whatever they wanted on a case-by-case basis".

[ASCLEPIADES]

Probably the Gospels are a not very reliable source for the study of Roman law.

In the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I agree. Judging by outside evidence, however, John is much more reliable about historically verifiable matters than the other three,

 

New Testament's historicity is an extense and always controversial issue and that was not what I have in mind; I tried to restrict myself to the legal aspect.

 

Please remember, the absurd legal explanation of the Barabbas episode appears on the four canonical Gospels.

[caldrail]

Finally, I'd much prefer to rely on John's record of what the Romans actually did than to rely on worthless generalities like "the Romans did whatever they wanted on a case-by-case basis".

Oh please. The Bible is propaganda. It whitewashes everything to portray the christians as the downtrodden Chosen. Whether John was any more accurate or not I can't say, but then I doubt you can. In any case, the early christians edited the content of the Bible so its not really a reliable source of history, regardless of christian sentiment.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Bible is propaganda. It whitewashes everything to portray the christians as the downtrodden Chosen. Whether John was any more accurate or not I can't say, but then I doubt you can.

I don't pretend to be an authority on teasing out the historicity of the Bible, which is why I relied on Fergus Millar's treatment of the text. Although I'm not a Christian and haven't a religious bone in my body, I don't think that ancient history is best served by ignoring unreliable sources. If that's how we practiced ancient history, we'd have to drop Livy, Suetonius, and all the rest.

[frankq]

The administration of Judea is a tricky issue, especially since, due to its troublesome nature well up into the 2nd century AD, it went from being an equestrian run province to one of praetorian and then finally consular rank. Roman annexation, followed by its short period as a client kingdom under Agrippa I, then its return to a province complicates matters, too. Another pointed matter is the fact that, because Judea was a trouble spot, the Romans were always changing their administrative control. Basically, however, they modified on the local self-governing level the Hasmonean-Herodian bureaucracy which was in turn inherited from the Ptolemaic bureaucracy when Judea was a province of Egypt. Rome collected the taxes, conducted all policy as far as Judea

[M. Porcius Cato]

But the Sanhedrin was not empowered to condemn a man to death so they took him to Pilate.

Was it that they weren't generally empowered to condemn a man to death--or that they couldn't do so for religious reasons on the day before the feast of Passover (since it would mean that they would have to execute him the following day)? The relevant passage from John admits both interpretations.

[frankq]

But the Sanhedrin was not empowered to condemn a man to death so they took him to Pilate.

Was it that they weren't generally empowered to condemn a man to death--or that they couldn't do so for religious reasons on the day before the feast of Passover (since it would mean that they would have to execute him the following day)? The relevant passage from John admits both interpretations.

 

John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels. The law was officially that only Rome had the power to pass the death sentence. This didn

[M. Porcius Cato]

John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels.

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable?

[frankq]

John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels.

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable?

 

Reread my initial statement. I said he was the least reliable chronology wise.

Edited September 12, 2007 by frankq

[caldrail]

The Bible is propaganda. It whitewashes everything to portray the christians as the downtrodden Chosen. Whether John was any more accurate or not I can't say, but then I doubt you can.

I don't pretend to be an authority on teasing out the historicity of the Bible, which is why I relied on Fergus Millar's treatment of the text. Although I'm not a Christian and haven't a religious bone in my body, I don't think that ancient history is best served by ignoring unreliable sources. If that's how we practiced ancient history, we'd have to drop Livy, Suetonius, and all the rest.

Yep, understand the point, but the problem I have with the bible is that it isn't a history book at all. Its a story. Based on real events certainly, but then so are many novels, romances, and hollywood epics. Its rather like basing your knowledge of Spartacus on Kirk Douglas.

[M. Porcius Cato]

John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels.

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable?

Reread my initial statement. I said he was the least reliable chronology wise.

Reread my initial reply: I said you have it backwards. John is the most reliable--chronology wise too.

[frankq]

John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels.

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable?

Reread my initial statement. I said he was the least reliable chronology wise.

Reread my initial reply: I said you have it backwards. John is the most reliable--chronology wise too.

 

You have it backwards. In fact you have the sock inside out. John is the least reliable source for any kind of historical analysis of Jesus, and is paled by the others when it comes to covering events in Jesus

[caldrail]

If Cato is correct and John is more accurate, then his account is arguably better because of the accuracy even if the early life is left off. Simply including the early is not necessarily of any importance or may it may be a later fabrication. In fact, by arguing that the entire story is related you are in fact accentuating a need for a good story rather than cold facts. Roman historians were storytellers first, and archivists second. They needed to be. They wanted people to read their books and there's nothing worse than a dry treatise that needs concentration to read. Theology is the whole point of why the bible survives to this day - it was a document providing a rationale for the belief structure of christianity, which is arguably a heretical cult of judaism itself. The early bishops of Rome were under no illusions about this faith, which was fragmented back then even more than today, and unashamedly used their worshippers as cash cows. Sounds familiar? It should. John is also supposed to have written the Book of Revelations even though he probably didn't, given the different style, and the only reason the Revelations still form part of the bible is that its been misunderstood since roman times. It wasn't a prophecy for the modern day, it was a call to arms against the roman empire. Lets not forget, the bible as we know it didn't exist until centuries after Jesus's death.

[frankq]

Part of an article from the New Advent:

 

VI. HISTORICAL GENUINENESS

Objections Raised against the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel

The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations.

 

The writings of Loisy and their rationalistic prototypes, especially those of the German critics, have influenced many later exegetes, who while wishing to maintain the Catholic standpoint in general, concede only a very limited measure of historical genuineness to the Fourth Gospel. Among this class are included those who acknowledge as historical the main outlines of the Evangelist's narrative, but see in many individual portions only symbolical embellishments. Others hold with H. J. Holtzmann that we must recognize in the Gospel a mixture of the subjective, theological speculations of the author and the objective, personal recollections of his intercourse with Christ, without any possibility of our distinguishing by sure criteria these different elements. That such a hypothesis precludes any further question as to the historical genuineness of the Johannine narrative, is evident, and is indeed candidly admitted by the representatives of these views.

 

On examining the grounds for this denial or limitation of the historical genuineness of John we find that they are drawn by the critics almost exclusively from the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic narrative. On comparison three points of contrast are discovered: (1) with respect to the events which are related; (2) in regard to the mode of presentation; and (3) in the doctrine which is contained in the narrative.