The Bible as a Historical Source

[frankq]

Also from the German theologian Adolf von Harnack:

 

"In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated 22 great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus

[M. Porcius Cato]

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

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also from the German theologian Adolf von Harnack

Don't quote authority at me. Give me reasons.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

I agree, and I see that you beat me to the point that I wanted to make.

[frankq]

Also from the German theologian Adolf Von Harnack

Don't quote authority at me. Give me reasons.

 

Don't dictate terms. I find it rude. And you give me some reason, which you haven't, on why you find John chronologically more accurate.

[M. Porcius Cato]

give me some reason, which you haven't, on why you find John chronologically more accurate.

 

See my post on Luke above.

 

Also, the key to the superiority of John to Matthew is that the latter makes a hash of the chronology of the Passover feast, which must have occurred after the crucifixion and not at Jesus' last supper.

Edited September 15, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[frankq]

give me some reason, which you haven't, on why you find John chronologically more accurate.

 

See my post on Luke above.

 

Also, the key to the superiority of John to Matthew is that the latter makes a hash of the chronology of the Passover feast, which must have occurred after the crucifixion and not at Jesus' last supper.

 

Do you mean:

 

"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". "

 

If so, then that's not enough. I need more. And I know you want more from me which you'll get, I'm in Europe so I'm presently under certain social time restraints...

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you mean:

No. See HERE.

[frankq]

Do you mean:

No. See HERE.

 

I don

[M. Porcius Cato]

Instead, because of John

[frankq]

Interesting response.

 

<<<<On this matter, there is simply no scholarly consensus, but I tend to agree with scholars who take Jesus to have visited Jerusalem on more than one occasion, just as John claimed.<<<<<

 

You are not alone here. The general swing of the pendulum has scholars these days leaning to one trip to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, but there are many now who are insisting that several visits were possible and are trying to pull the pendulum back. I

[caldrail]

One last point of interesting note with either argument is how little mention is made by Josephus regarding Jesus. Even if his ministry was a low blip on the radar, the Jewish historian had a noted eye for detail on the various prophets cropping up in the region. A theory might be worked that Josephus, as a practicing Jew, wanted to downplay the Christian sect within Judaism, which had a persistent following up until the Bar Kochba revolt. But this is just a theory and I

[frankq]

The problem is, Jesus knows his ancestors were part of the royal family of Judaea <<<<

The only real hard basis for the story of Jesus is the bible, which is not a history book <<<<

 

I like your scenario. It might not be very far from the truth. But two matters need to be pointed out.

Jesus was a Galilean. Galilee was forced to convert to Judaism under Aristobulus I only "recently" toward the end of the 2nd Century BC. Galileans were looked down upon by the Judeans in the same way as were Idumeans, who were forced to convert even earlier under John Hyrcanus. The Jesus House of David connection is sheer propaganda, devised because the messiah was supposed to come from the Davidic line. It's one of the more blatant and offensive fronts in Christianity. What was the line? "What good can come from Galilee?" The place was a home of zealots.

 

One other note, knocking the Bible as a historical source isn

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Jesus House of David connection is sheer propaganda, devised because the messiah was supposed to come from the Davidic line. It's one of the more blatant and offensive fronts in Christianity. What was the line? "What good can come from Galilee?" The place was a home of zealots.

 

Maybe it's propaganda, maybe not.

 

Matthew offered a decent explanation of why Joseph wanted to live in Galilee despite his family connections in Bethlehem, the hometown of David. If you add that Mary had been ..er.. a frisky young woman, it might also explain why she would seek to live outside her hometown, and in Galilee probably no one thought to ask her any uncomfortable questions about Jesus' biological father. And if your Dad tells you that you're the descendent of David and your Mom tells you that she knew God (in the biblical sense), you could very well convince yourself that you're the Messiah.

 

There was this one guy, bald as a peach, who thought he was descended from Venus, and ... oh, never mind.

[caldrail]

Jesus was a Galilean. Galilee was forced to convert to Judaism under Aristobulus I only "recently" toward the end of the 2nd Century BC. Galileans were looked down upon by the Judeans in the same way as were Idumeans, who were forced to convert even earlier under John Hyrcanus. The Jesus House of David connection is sheer propaganda, devised because the messiah was supposed to come from the Davidic line. It's one of the more blatant and offensive fronts in Christianity. What was the line? "What good can come from Galilee?" The place was a home of zealots.

Thats backs up my view that Jesus was building a personality cult. I don't know too much about messiah prophecies, but I suspect the average Joe back then didn't either, hence jesus (with some glib talking) was able to convince well meaning but easily led people that yes, he was the man. In some ways jesus was optomistic - the area was under roman rule and the romans don't like potential troublemakers. By making this stand, Jesus effectively labelled himself as such. Now then. In the bible we read of jesus being nailed up on a crucifix (a standard roman punishment for people they wanted dead and made an example of). The christian explanation is that he died for us - as if he was some sort of martyr simply 'doing the right thing'. Which is nonsense isn't it? jesus never chose to be executed, indeed, under questioning he tried to persuade the romans he wasn't the problem they thought he was. Truth is, the romans executed him for reasons they thought perfectly lawful at the time. In later years, it was the romans themselves who were preaching christianity and this 'martyrdom' explanation was cobbled together to paint over the implications of it. Its interesting that you say the royal family thing is fiction (No suprise there! ) and that gallileans were considered troublesome anyway. The middle east has always been a rich source of religious cults, especially Syria, so this sort of career was possibly not unusual for the time?

 

One other note, knocking the Bible as a historical source isn't really fair.

Nothing unfair about it at all. Why should the bible be given freedom from criticism? Because its the christian guidebook? Look what happens. As soon as you cast doubt on christianity someone picks up the good book and says "But its written in here Sir" as if the bible is automatically considered inviolable. How many archaeologists have been chasing phantoms trying to find evidence for the bible stories in the holy land? Look what happens with 'The Da Vinci Code'. Now there are people utterly convinced its real. So it is with the bible.

 

To dismiss it as mere fiction isn't really giving its its proper due. By the time of the later prophets it actually really made a try at chronicling events

But thats exactly what the bible is - fiction. Its a series of stories based loosely on real events and reinterpreted to portray the world in christian terms. If mundane history and archaeology backed the story closer then I'd have to say there was something in it, but as far as I'm aware the records of the time simply don't match the New Testament. History is written by the victors is it not?