Are the Four Gospels Trustworthy?

[POI]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
2. If so, are they completely trustworthy, or maybe only completely trustworthy where they really need to be?
3. Do they even need to be trustworthy?

[Miles]

Let’s forget about the doctrine of inerrancy, it’s a rabbit trail. You have said here you wouldn’t put much trust in the Gospels but the main argument you have presented is the contradiction argument. It seems you are arguing that if they contain contradictions it’s possible they are false.

If it's a true contradiction

Jehoiachin was both eight years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he began to reign, and eighteen years old (2 Kings 24:8) when he began to reign.

one of the verses has to be false, doesn't it? Of course it does. And perhaps even both of them.

Firstly, that’s an OT example. This thread concerns the Gospels.

He! He! From your last few posts I could tell you were just itching to jump on something I said in order to what, stick it to me? show me up? Okay, I admit I didn't present a contradiction from the Gospels, figuring the five I presented in post 10 would suffice, but Here you are. From all four of 'em, and quoted from the Bible itself:

The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.

Matthew 4:5-8
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.

Luke 4:5-9
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

AND

During his last moments on the cross Jesus both did and did not drink the wine offered him:

John 19:30
30 Jesus drank the wine and said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Mark 15:23
23 There they tried to give him wine mixed with a drug called myrrh, but Jesus would not drink it.

But what is really amusing is your stretch to suggest my example may not be a "true" contradiction because it doesn't take a formal logic form. REALLY Goose? REALLY? You're that desperate?

To wit:

Secondly, I’m not sure that even qualifies as a true contradiction, at least not in the explicit sense: X and ~(X). [I believe the correct form is X and ~X, sans the parentheses.] This particular case is just as easily explained as a copyist error. Some manuscripts read “eighteen” at 2 Chronicles 36:9.

And, I assume you recognize that a contradiction stands as a contradiction regardless of its genesis. But . . . *sigh* . . . this is enough of your attempt to best me or whatever your goal is. I have better things to do than respond, and I would hope you find more to do than to lie in wait to nitpick. ... I would hope.


Have a good day. (This means I'm done engaging you on this topic, and possibly other topics as well)

.

[TRANSPONDER]

We have to trust people not to be stupid or easily fooled - when they are shown that someone is trying to fool them. Most people don't seem to know the contradictions. But supposing the mess of contradiction and discrepancy that the gospels are was commonly understood, they would not be fooled by the usual excuses.

That the contradictions are not is a correct logical form, won't cut any ice with someone who it shown that Jesus gets stabbed in the side in John but not in the synoptics. When these omissions are seen all through the gospels, with some of the most significant (no anointing in Luke; not Temple cleansing in John) about shown to have the event moved to different times. They will not buy the common excuse that 'they forgot'', or they didn't know or 'it wasn't important'. They could supposedly remember strings of sayings and exhortations but forget 'Oh, Jesus over turned the tables' or didn't think it important but instead has a chat with a bunch of Greeks (John 12. 20), and that there is a Temple cleansing at the time of the baptism unknown to the synoptics will make it immediately clear - John has moved the event and one can only ask why.

The self -serving excuses are known, yet also contradictory. the 'accurate oral transmission' claim to brush away any doubts about the gospels not being reliable can change to amazing events or miracles being somehow forgotten. Or not known? How could all the disciples or the writers they talked to not have known about the raising of Lazarus?

There are real and significant contradictions that absolutely do undermine their reliability or even credibility. The Bible apologists are very clever in coming up with excuses (and excuses they are rather than explanations). They seem to rely heavily on people not knowing their Bibles. To use that road -map analogy, you need to compare the two sets of maps to see they don't match (1). It doesn't matter whether the surveyor or the cartographer made the mistake - or that one did a map from an urban point of view and the other from an interstate point of view; they still contradict.

It doesn't matter that Bible apologists can come up with a string of apologetics excuses that they can use as a pretext to wave away any problems; People will not be fooled, once they have the trick explained.They haven't yet had it explained, because the Biblical card - sharpers want to keep the tricks secret. In fact, I think that once they have been sold the 'Genealogy of Mary' flam, and are then shown that it is a lie, they will be angry. If they are like me, they do not like people who lie to them, even if those apologists do believe the lie themselves.

(1) of course the analogy is not perfect research might show that the road was altered between the time the maps were published, but the events of Jesus life ought to match.

[Goose]

He! He! From your last few posts I could tell you were just itching to jump on something I said in order to what, stick it to me? show me up?

No, to show you that your reasoning is flawed. You know, that whole section you ignored in my last post to you. It seems you aren’t interested in that though but rather want to turn this into another Bible contradictions thread. The presence of contradictions real or imagined are irrelevant at this point because virtually every text from ancient history conflicts with another on some point. Even some of the texts that are considered generally reliable. Your argument seems to imply we must toss them all out as untrustworthy.

Okay, I admit I didn't present a contradiction from the Gospels, figuring the five I presented in post 10 would suffice, but Here you are. From all four of 'em, and quoted from the Bible itself:

The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.

Matthew 4:5-8
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.

Luke 4:5-9
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

1213 already provided a sufficient counter to this here. You responded lamely with the quip, “Get real!”.

During his last moments on the cross Jesus both did and did not drink the wine offered him:

John 19:30
30 Jesus drank the wine and said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Mark 15:23
23 There they tried to give him wine mixed with a drug called myrrh, but Jesus would not drink it.

Hardly even a discrepancy let alone a true contradiction. Easily resolved when one notices that Mark records two different instances where Jesus was offered wine. The first time around the time Jesus was crucified (the third hour, Mark 15:23-25) when Jesus refused the wine. The second time just before Jesus died (around the ninth hour, Mark 15:34-37) where Mark does not comment on whether Jesus accepted or refused the wine. John records that Jesus accepted the wine offered him just before he died.

But what is really amusing is your stretch to suggest my example may not be a "true" contradiction because it doesn't take a formal logic form. REALLY Goose? REALLY? You're that desperate?

There’s no need to start yelling. Let’s keep in mind it was you who used the verbiage “true contradiction.” It was you who qualified the word contradiction with the word true. I took that to mean an actual contradiction, a proven contradiction, you know, one that is, well, true. What else should I have taken “true contradiction” to mean? If you meant something more like a discrepancy you should have used a different word. The word contradiction has a specific meaning and a true contradiction has even more specified meaning.

If you would take the time to re-read what I wrote to you, you will notice that I did not argue your example may not be a true contradiction because it doesn’t “take a formal logic form.” What I argued is that I’m not sure it is a true contradiction, at least it is not in the explicit sense. Thereby leaving the door wide open for it to possibly be an implicit contradiction, which it doesn’t seem to be either. Explicit contradictions are more obvious but even then may not be an actual contradiction. Implicit contradictions are far less obvious and often require some underlying assumptions to made in order to argue for the contradiction. Whether it is an actual contradiction will depend upon whether or not those assumptions are true. In short, it’s far more difficult to prove a contradiction than one might think. Simply juxtaposing two verses taken out of context and claiming a contradiction (as you’ve done above and here) is a lame way to argue a contradiction. Somehow folks around here think that’s a sufficient way to prove a contradiction but it isn’t, not by a long shot. You bear the burden to prove the claim that two verses are contradictory, I don’t bear the burden to disprove it.

And, I assume you recognize that a contradiction stands as a contradiction regardless of its genesis.

Of course, if it is an actual contradiction.

But . . . *sigh* . . . this is enough of your attempt to best me or whatever your goal is. I have better things to do than respond, and I would hope you find more to do than to lie in wait to nitpick. I would hope.

The accusation of nitpicking from one who thinks the above “contradictions” are somehow sufficient and meaningful enough to render the Gospels as wholly untrustworthy is rather rich. Besides, I don’t think pointing out an error in someone’s reasoning is ever nitpicking.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is why I think the Biggies are the ones we Bible skeptics need to look at rather than one more easily explained or just dismissed . Mind, I think the details of the crucifixion might be more problematical than you argue, though I do not myself doubt the historicity of Jesus actually being crucified.

I did think that you were saying that the contradictions were not contradictions because they were not in some formal form, but if it's that they are minor ones, ok. I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

[Goose]

I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

Let’s apply this kind of absurd historical reasoning in the highlighted part to Josephus since you've argued for his historical accuracy in an earlier post. There are numerous contradictions, discrepancies, omissions, etc. between Tacitus’ account and Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. In keeping with how others in this thread have argued for contradictions in the Gospels I will present the following:


1. How many camps did the Romans pitch?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.11:

"Titus pitched his camp before the walls of Jerusalem"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5.2.4 :

"the Romans pitching three several camps"

It can’t be the case that the Romans pitched both one and three camps, can it?


2. How many Jews were killed?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.13:

"the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.9.2.:

"those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand"

It can’t be the case that nearly 1.1 million Jews died in the siege if the total number besieged was only 600 thousand, can it? That seems to be a major contradiction, doesn't it? We could let slide a discrepancy of a few thousand or perhaps even tens of thousands. But hundreds of thousands? In fact, some commentators have estimated that there couldn't have been much more than a million Jews in all of Palestine at the time which would mean virtually the entire Jewish population in the region was wiped out if we accept Josephus.

Your reasoning implies that everything else (remember you said “the rest” in the highlighted bit above) Josephus wrote is discredited because there are contradictions between him and Tacitus on the siege of Jerusalem. In fact, since Josephus and Tacitus contradict each other it’s possible they are both wrong. According to Miles’ reasoning, if it’s possible they are wrong then they are untrustworthy. Thus, his reasoning implies we should discard Tacitus along with Josephus.

[TRANSPONDER]

I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

Let’s apply this kind of absurd historical reasoning in the highlighted part to Josephus since you've argued for his historical accuracy in an earlier post. There are numerous contradictions, discrepancies, omissions, etc. between Tacitus’ account and Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. In keeping with how others in this thread have argued for contradictions in the Gospels I will present the following:


1. How many camps did the Romans pitch?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.11:

"Titus pitched his camp before the walls of Jerusalem"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5.2.4 :

"the Romans pitching three several camps"

It can’t be the case that the Romans pitched both one and three camps, can it?


2. How many Jews were killed?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.13:

"the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.9.2.:

"those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand"

It can’t be the case that nearly 1.1 million Jews died in the siege if the total number besieged was only 600 thousand, can it? That seems to be a major contradiction, doesn't it? We could let slide a discrepancy of a few thousand or perhaps even tens of thousands. But hundreds of thousands? In fact, some commentators have estimated that there couldn't have been much more than a million Jews in all of Palestine at the time which would mean virtually the entire Jewish population in the region was wiped out if we accept Josephus.

Your reasoning implies that everything else (remember you said “the rest” in the highlighted bit above) Josephus wrote is discredited because there are contradictions between him and Tacitus on the siege of Jerusalem. In fact, since Josephus and Tacitus contradict each other it’s possible they are both wrong. According to Miles’ reasoning, if it’s possible they are wrong then they are untrustworthy. Thus, his reasoning implies we should discard Tacitus along with Josephus.

It's not just Tacitus and Josephus who disagree, but Josephus and Philo on Pilate for instance. But still the broad outlines are the same about the siege of Masada and the actions of Pilate. In fact there were three camps and we can take it that Josephus knew the details and Tacitus was talking generally; he thought in terms of one camp rather than three. In fact I recall that Josephus was in Titus' following after he switched sides.

The thinking is often applied to the gospels - that they are broadly correct, give or take a few disagreements. But then, when it comes to serious problems, remember that the Gospels are supposed to be eyewitness or eyewitness report, not some historian writing from a distance, though Luke is a bit like that.

But the thing about the contradictions - apart from asking what we can trust and what we can't - is that we can see how the text is being manipulated. John moving the temple - cleansing; Luke adding to the rejection at Nazareth and moving it, Luke manipulating the sermon material, having a penitent thief that nobody else knows about. One might argue he is like Tacitus - reporting what he's heard but is perhaps less accurate that Josephus, who has often been supported by research.

The serious problems with the gospels must suggest that they are not to be trusted as eyewitness because they disagree on so many important things. And some things like the Nativities and Resurrection, so badly that it is not a question of one angel or two, like one camp or three, or even Alexander's Gordian knot looking legendary, but of total disagreement - except for the basic claim, and a claim is not evidence for the claim.

[Goose]

I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

Let’s apply this kind of absurd historical reasoning in the highlighted part to Josephus since you've argued for his historical accuracy in an earlier post. There are numerous contradictions, discrepancies, omissions, etc. between Tacitus’ account and Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. In keeping with how others in this thread have argued for contradictions in the Gospels I will present the following:


1. How many camps did the Romans pitch?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.11:

"Titus pitched his camp before the walls of Jerusalem"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5.2.4 :

"the Romans pitching three several camps"

It can’t be the case that the Romans pitched both one and three camps, can it?


2. How many Jews were killed?

Tacitus, Histories, 5.13:

"the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand"

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.9.2.:

"those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand"

It can’t be the case that nearly 1.1 million Jews died in the siege if the total number besieged was only 600 thousand, can it? That seems to be a major contradiction, doesn't it? We could let slide a discrepancy of a few thousand or perhaps even tens of thousands. But hundreds of thousands? In fact, some commentators have estimated that there couldn't have been much more than a million Jews in all of Palestine at the time which would mean virtually the entire Jewish population in the region was wiped out if we accept Josephus.

Your reasoning implies that everything else (remember you said “the rest” in the highlighted bit above) Josephus wrote is discredited because there are contradictions between him and Tacitus on the siege of Jerusalem. In fact, since Josephus and Tacitus contradict each other it’s possible they are both wrong. According to Miles’ reasoning, if it’s possible they are wrong then they are untrustworthy. Thus, his reasoning implies we should discard Tacitus along with Josephus.

It's not just Tacitus and Josephus who disagree, but Josephus and Philo on Pilate for instance. But still the broad outlines are the same about the siege of Masada and the actions of Pilate.

When Josephus is contradicted by other sources you argue for the broad outlines being the same. But even though the broad outlines of the resurrection accounts (death, burial, resurrection, appearances) are the same you focus on the contradictions and claim they “contradict terminally.”

In fact there were three camps and we can take it that Josephus knew the details and Tacitus was talking generally; he thought in terms of one camp rather than three. In fact I recall that Josephus was in Titus' following after he switched sides.

Tacitus seemed to have intimate knowledge of the details as well. He gave detailed reports of the Roman troops involved. He named the legions and places of their origin. He provided specific numbers of cohorts and squadrons of cavalry (Histories 5.1). All of which, by the way, introduces a slew of further inconsistencies such as Tacitus saying the Twelfth legion was from Syria (Histories 5.1). But Josephus implies those from Syria were distinct from the Twelfth legion (Wars 5.1.6).

The thinking is often applied to the gospels - that they are broadly correct, give or take a few disagreements. But then, when it comes to serious problems, remember that the Gospels are supposed to be eyewitness or eyewitness report, not some historian writing from a distance, though Luke is a bit like that.

Josephus is supposedly a firsthand source to the siege of Jerusalem, yet he is contradicted by Tacitus. Not only that but Josephus makes basic errors such as incorrectly referring to Titus as both King (Wars 5.2.2) and Caesar (Wars 5.2.3) while at that time Vespasian was still alive and Caesar. How could a contemporary and eyewitness make such errors?

But the thing about the contradictions - apart from asking what we can trust and what we can't - is that we can see how the text is being manipulated. John moving the temple - cleansing; Luke adding to the rejection at Nazareth and moving it, Luke manipulating the sermon material, having a penitent thief that nobody else knows about. One might argue he is like Tacitus - reporting what he's heard but is perhaps less accurate that Josephus, who has often been supported by research.

That ancient authors “manipulated,” as you put it, their source material to suit their agendas is known. We can even see that with the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus on the siege of Jerusalem. Tacitus omits the battles lost by the Romans. Josephus seems eager to portray the Jews as successful and courageous in the initial battles. Not that surprising when one considers Tacitus was a Roman by birth whereas Josephus was Jewish by birth and sympathetic towards the Jews.

The serious problems with the gospels must suggest that they are not to be trusted as eyewitness because they disagree on so many important things. And some things like the Nativities and Resurrection, so badly that it is not a question of one angel or two, like one camp or three, or even Alexander's Gordian knot looking legendary, but of total disagreement - except for the basic claim, and a claim is not evidence for the claim.

Now you are changing your argument again from arguing against general reliability to arguing against eyewitness sources. No one has argued, yet, that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. You seem to be moving back and forth between arguing the Gospels are largely trustworthy except for some details to they should be wholly discarded because they contradict to they can't be trusted as eyewitness accounts because they disagree. So what exactly are you arguing?

But again this reasoning would imply that Josephus was not an eyewitness of the siege of Jerusalem since he is contradicted on many points by Tacitus. You glossed over a major contradiction, the number of Jews killed. Surely that would be a “terminal contradiction” if you think the resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory? But if that isn’t enough, there’s more.

Tacitus has the initial skirmishes taking place beneath the walls and just outside the gates where the Jews suffered continual defeats until they eventually retreated inside the city walls (Histories 5.11) . Whereas Josephus has the Jews leaving the city to directly attack the Romans and winning the initial skirmishes. Nearly killing Titus in an ambush (Wars 5.2.2) and routing the entire Tenth Roman legion in their own camp (Wars 5.2.4). When one reads the accounts side by side they are consistent on the broad point that the Jews and Romans initially fought outside the city walls and few other details. But overall they conflict heavily. Again your reasoning above implies we should discard Josephus and everything he wrote as untrustworthy, yet you have claimed he is historically accurate.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Goose in post #37]

So, where does "inspired by God" come into the picture?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Goose in post #37]

Well that's all very good. But I don't see any value in debating who is more to be relied upon, Tacitus or Josephus (as well as not having time to examine all your points to see whether they are valid or not (1). The point is, that disagreements don't invalidate both or even either of them, isn't that the argument?

Yes, the problem of interpreting history is known and you know as well as I that gospel contradiction have been shrugged off and it has been generally accepted that some gospels record some events, and other gospels record others. I think this has been far too accepting.

You try to make it seem that I am changing my argument. I am not; Bible unreliability comes in many forms. Gospel unreliability does many things. Fallacy - the Blasphemy charge makes no sense, illness is not caused by evil spirits.

There is historical unreliability: the nativities cannot have happened at two different dates, the tomb cannot have been where it is supposed to be now (though this is a clue rather than a disproof)

The omission of important things. We can only speculate about where Tacitus got the order of battle (1) of the Romans or how Josephus knew there were three camps (2), but I take the point that disagreements don't automatically discredit the accounts. But the omission of really important things by eyewitness or 2nd hand is more of a problem than the questions raised by comparing Josephus and Tacitus. How could they not know about the raising of Lazarus, or the spear -thrust. or John not know about the transfiguration. That is more 'terminal contradictions' than which historian knew what.

This brings me to understanding the writing. It is supposed that Josephus drew a lot of material from Nicolaus of Damascus. Tacitus is guessed to have consulted the records. With the gospels, we can see what is going on, and it is a basic gospel that Mark, Matthew and Luke worked from, so we can see the alterations and additions. We can see how John rips the Temple cleansing from Holy Week and puts it at the start. This isn't different information, this is gospel falsification. Thus, Tacitus or no, when Luke puts in a penitent thief that Mark and Matthew have never heard of, you cannot wave that away with the (accepted) problems with historical discrepancy. It fails terminally because these are big discrepancies and the people were supposed to be right there or talking to people who were.

(1) for one thing you appear to be confusing the siege of Jotapa with the siege of Jerusalem, but as I say, I don't see in detail examination as anything but a time - wasting distraction.
(2) it's easy to explain that Tacitus could just list the legions from the records, but didn't know there were three camps, not one.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Goose in post #37]

So, where does "inspired by God" come into the picture?

"Inspired by God" translates as "God gets the credit for what's right; man gets the blame for what's wrong".