In what way do the gospels differ from history?

[marco]

From time to time we have a poster saying that the tales of Christ, his birth, resurrection and ascension into heaven are history. Others deny this. Obviously there are useful facts we can extract from the gospel writings, given their age.


In what ways - if any - do the gospels differ from other historical writings such as Livy's history of Rome, Gibbon's treatise on the Roman Empire or Churchill's account of World War ii?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]


When we read the work of some historian we are referred to the many sources from which their information came. In the gospels we have an account of Christ's genealogy back to Adam but no information on how it was found. We must always suppose that someone told someone and the writer got the story. Is this good enough?

[Divine Insight]

In what ways - if any - do the gospels differ from other historical writings such as Livy's history of Rome, Gibbon's treatise on the Roman Empire or Churchill's account of World War ii?

To begin with I would hope that no historian views the examples you have given as precise and unquestioned historical facts. Even in all of those cases a historian is going to seek independent collaborating evidence for any claims made.

So why the documents you have referred to are a part of history, that doesn't mean that their content should be taken to contain truthful statements about history.

The same is true of the Bible.

For example Churchill's account of World War II is going to be biased based on his personal perspective, etc.

You also asked in what ways to these historical documents differ from the Gospels.

Well, the major difference is that the documents you've listed don't make claims about supernatural events. The Gospels certainly do. And the Gospels do so to an extreme degree.

So that's a huge difference right there.

Plus the content of the Gospels doesn't match up with independent sources.

For example Matthew claims that many saints were raised from their graves and went into the holy city to show themselves to the people there. Well if that was true then we should expect to see independent historical accounts from the people who say those saints. But no such independent historical accounts exist.

This would be like Churchill proclaiming that the Nazis invaded France, but when you go to France no one there has any reports of any Nazis. They you would have good reason to question Churchill's account.

However, if you go to France and find plenty of independent historical evidence that the Nazis invaded France, then you have historical evidence to confirm that what Churchill claimed actually did happen.

We simply don't have this kind of independent confirmation of the claims made by the authors of the Gospels. In fact, we have precisely the opposite. The Gospels claim that Jesus was known far and wide for his miraculous healing powers and that people from far off lands came to seek him out. The problem with this is that there is absolutely no historical evidence in any of these far off lands to confirm these claims.

Like I say, this would be like going to France and having the people there say, "What are Nazis? We never heard of them."

So the Bible has absolutely no historical credibility at all concerning any of its supernatural claims. There simply isn't any independent historical evidence to back up any of the supernatural claimed made in the Gospels.

If such independent evidence existed you can be certain that Christian theists would have already canonized that evidence into yet another "Holy Canon" of independent evidence for the supernatural claims made by the authors of the Gospels.

No such canon of independent evidence exists because the independent evidence itself does not exist.

So no credibility for the supernatural claims made by the authors of the Gospels.

Why people keep asking about this is beyond me. I would think it should be obvious. It's certainly obvious to historians. No credible historians are claiming that the Gospel rumors should be taken as credible history.

The only people who attempt to make such arguments are clearly those who have extreme religious bias and agendas. No credible unbiased historian would ever support such a claim.

We don't see the Christian Gospels being taught in history classes for GOOD reasons. They simply don't qualify as credible historical documents. It's that simple.

[Zzyzx]

.
The Gospels are religion promotion literature. Their purpose is to present religious ideas / stories favorable to Jesus worship – not to record real world events. Fantasy and fiction are not prohibited in religious literature.

[SallyF]

We don't need to imagine what this bloke looked like; we can verify that he wrote of genuine historical events, and there was nothing magical about him (as far as we know):



We can only IMAGINE what this bloke looked like; we don't know that he wrote ANYTHING, and his whole (possibly fictional) existence is SURROUNDED by magic:

[Tcg]

We can only IMAGINE what this bloke looked like; we don't know that he wrote ANYTHING, and his whole (possibly fictional) existence is SURROUNDED by magic:

And we are left to wonder which heaven this refers to. The sky, God's crib, space, or perhaps none of these. Whichever we pick, some who believe this image represents reality will tell us we are wrong.

I've never seen a similar disagreement about England.


Tcg

[marco]

To begin with I would hope that no historian views the examples you have given as precise and unquestioned historical facts.

I think you can rest easy on this point; historians know the basics of their work. I gave examples of rather famous history texts. Livy, for example, contains fictions and myths. It is said that history is written by the victors. My point was to compare works of history with the gospels and find similarities or points where they vary.

So while the documents you have referred to are a part of history, that doesn't mean that their content should be taken to contain truthful statements about history.

SOME or most of their content will be taken to contain facts, else we don't have a history but a fictional exercise. Some statements may be opinion; some may be in error. Good historians express views for and against, where opinion is offered.

Well, the major difference is that the documents you've listed don't make claims about supernatural events. The Gospels certainly do. And the Gospels do so to an extreme degree.

Gibbon does mention some supernatural events regarding Muhammad, but it seems clear he doesn't believe them. Livy mentions supernatural events about a Roman king, and I guess he didn't believe his account but felt it worthy of reporting.

Plus the content of the Gospels doesn't match up with independent sources.

Some of the content does match up with independent sources, such as Tacitus or the Jewish writer Josephus. Additionally archaeologists are working on a site that might be Emmaus, where Jesus went after he got out of his grave.

But the gospels are radically different from history texts because they are presenting moral lessons for us, from what is thought to be a divine teacher. The premise is that what is said is not only true, but divinely inspired. No history text claims this.

So the Bible has absolutely no historical credibility at all concerning any of its supernatural claims. There simply isn't any independent historical evidence to back up any of the supernatural claims made in the Gospels.

There are attempts made to offer evidence, for example from Paul. But I agree with you that in respect to supernatural claims we don't have concrete proof they took place, and some claims border on the ridiculous. So the difference is that while we might hear of odd events in real histories, they are not presented as credible; the bible offers us incredible events and requires us to believe the reporters or accept the opinions of people who, for example, deduce empty tomb means resurrection.


The phenomenon that was Christ did have an influence on Western civilisation, so it is right to examine why and how. But I concur with your dismissal of the gospels as historical documents: they are more like extended prayers with lakes and towns as background noise.

[Divine Insight]

Some of the content does match up with independent sources, such as Tacitus or the Jewish writer Josephus. Additionally archaeologists are working on a site that might be Emmaus, where Jesus went after he got out of his grave.

Mundane facts aren't impressive. Even Greek mythology makes claims about cities and people who were known to actually exist. That doesn't provide any evidence for any supernatural claims.

For example, we could have extremely credible evidence that some guy named Jesus argued with the religious leaders of his day, and was even officially crucified by Roman Soldiers. Even if we had that kind of evidence that wouldn't be evidence for any of the supernatural claims made about Jesus.

In Greek mythology there is a tale where a navy fleet set sail to go to war and the God Poseidon caused a huge storm to destroy the whole fleet. Historians have discovered evidence that this event actually occurred. Is this evidence for Poseidon? Of course not. But it is evidence that cultures attribute real events to the intervention of supernatural entities.

But the gospels are radically different from history texts because they are presenting moral lessons for us, from what is thought to be a divine teacher. The premise is that what is said is not only true, but divinely inspired. No history text claims this.

Nor would any historian believe anyone who claimed to be the truth, the way, and the life and that no one gets to God but by him.

[marco]

Mundane facts aren't impressive. Even Greek mythology makes claims about cities and people who were known to actually exist. That doesn't provide any evidence for any supernatural claims.

I am not in disagreement with you.

In Greek mythology there is a tale where a navy fleet set sail to go to war and the God Poseidon caused a huge storm to destroy the whole fleet. Historians have discovered evidence that this event actually occurred. Is this evidence for Poseidon? Of course not. But it is evidence that cultures attribute real events to the intervention of supernatural entities.

This is an important point. Xerxes whipped the sea and it was thought he was punished for his impiety towards Poseidon. We accept his deafeat; we do not accept the explanation. Instead of a blanket condemnation of all scripture it is prudent to view some events in the same way as with Xerxes: the gospel explanation is incorrect but the basic tale contains truth. I see no reason to disbelieve that a Jewish man went round saying nice things and got himself an audience and a cross. His apotheosis is like the introduction of Poseidon.

Nor would any historian believe anyone who claimed to be the truth, the way, and the life and that no one gets to God but by him.

Gandhi went round with a rather similar message, though his destination wasn't paradise but an Eden in India. It is the opinions offered by Christ's biographers that are inadmissible as history; we can accept many of the events, but stripped of the supernatural, they are mundane.


Jesus is an important historical figure on whom very important institutions have been built. In his name vast populations of native people were forcibly converted to a quasi-religious political system in the same way that Muhammad's followers pulled vast swathes of Africa and Asia into religious submission. Jesus and Muhammad performed the same function for their future followers.

The attribution of the miraculous to ordinary events is fiction, but sometimes history is built on fictions.

[Willum]

I am often amused how a single ambiguous word in a memorial can contradict centuries of history. How 99 cultures can record a story as myth, and the Bible gets confirmation from these.

“Every culture has a Flood story, therefore the Bible is true.�
Every culture has a Flood MYTH, therefore the Bible is also a myth.. Is rational reasoning.

This is one of those topics where specific research yields worse results than general:
It seems one is always finding the Hebrew lies about this battle or that, this bit of history that is wrong, then you do a targeted search, and you can only find Bible-thumpers who tell you what is right about the Bible.
All three or four things.
A problem is, of course, that those people who do Biblical research are usually people fond of it, and unlikely to even admit its lies, and much less index and advertise them.

Here is a pretty link that destroys any credibility the Bible may have. Although some things can be dismissed as “they changed names so people could understand,� others are pure anachronism.

I think one of the biggest is proto-Jews were never in Egypt.
There was never Exodus or Moses, invalidating Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers, and of course, Exodus.

https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Pro ... e-20120517

I am looking for those wars reported as won by the heroic Hebrew, but actually lost, and not necessarily by them...