Are the Old and New Testaments really history?

[polonius]

Beginning with a definition we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity

Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. ... The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status.

To begin with a realistic examination of the Old and New Testament, we have to begin with its history or lack of history.

When do the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testaments first appear?

[polonius]

Yes. The primary history about Jesus was written by a Syrian Christian who never knew Jesus in the flesh and based on hearsay written 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark's story formed the source for Matthew and Luke's stories.

Under the circumstances, would you consider Mark's writings to be a credible source of history? What about the Matthew and Mark also non-witnesses who copied from Mark?

Yes, and yes.

I am actually a little confused why anyone would think otherwise. How many history books have you read in which the author was an eye-witness to everything s/he recorded? Not counting autobiographies (which have their own accuracy issues), for myself I came up with a grand total of zero.

Most rational people understand that historians gather information and write about it even though they were not present for everything they wrote about. This doesn’t make their information less reliable, and it seems like special pleading to say that only the Gospels should be discounted because the authors relied on information they got from other sources.

RESPONSE: A Jewish-Christian history written forty years after the events by a non-witness relying on legends and stories has to be viewed with caution. This is especially true when it conflicts with some other such writings.

Mark was a Syrian Christian. He does not report an Ascension and a "longer version" had to be added to his gospel in the second century so his gospel matched the other three. Matthew corrects some of his errors.

[bjs]

Yes. The primary history about Jesus was written by a Syrian Christian who never knew Jesus in the flesh and based on hearsay written 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark's story formed the source for Matthew and Luke's stories.

Under the circumstances, would you consider Mark's writings to be a credible source of history? What about the Matthew and Mark also non-witnesses who copied from Mark?

Yes, and yes.

I am actually a little confused why anyone would think otherwise. How many history books have you read in which the author was an eye-witness to everything s/he recorded? Not counting autobiographies (which have their own accuracy issues), for myself I came up with a grand total of zero.

Most rational people understand that historians gather information and write about it even though they were not present for everything they wrote about. This doesn’t make their information less reliable, and it seems like special pleading to say that only the Gospels should be discounted because the authors relied on information they got from other sources.

RESPONSE: A Jewish-Christian history written forty years after the events by a non-witness relying on legends and stories has to be viewed with caution. This is especially true when it conflicts with some other such writings.

Mark was a Syrian Christian. He does not report an Ascension and a "longer version" had to be added to his gospel in the second century so his gospel matched the other three. Matthew corrects some of his errors.

This thread began with reliable sources (with the exception of religioustolerance.org). While many of the claims were incomplete, they were at least basically accurate.

This post abandons that good start with unsupported claims and empty rhetoric.

There is, as far as I am aware, no evidence to support the claim that the author of Mark or his sources were relying on “legends.�

The idea that the author of Mark was Syrian is speculative at best and hotly contested.

Mark 16:9-20 were not a part of the original manuscript, but there is no evidence to suggest that they were added make Mark “match� the other three Gospels. If those verses were never written then that would in no way create discrepancies between Mark and the other Gospels.

The idea that Matthew “corrected� Mark has been repeatedly debunked on this site and elsewhere.

[polonius]

BJS posted

Mark 16:9-20 were not a part of the original manuscript, but there is no evidence to suggest that they were added make Mark “match� the other three Gospels. If those verses were never written then that would in no way create discrepancies between Mark and the other Gospels.

The idea that Matthew “corrected� Mark has been repeatedly debunked on this site and elsewhere.

RESPONSE: Please present the evidence for your “repeatedly debunked� claims. As in law, assertions not supported by facts are to be rejected out of hand!

The short (c 70 AD and long ending of Mark’s gospel (added in the second century)

The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb: the majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[34] and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome….. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts have the "longer ending", Mark 16:9–20, with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension.[35] This ending was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of ... el_of_Mark


The differing versions of the cure of the demoniacs between Mark and Matthew’s gospels

The cure of one or two demoniacs at Gerasenes or Gadarenese.

“Keep in mind these are two version of a supposedly witnessed event.The author of the Matthew Gospel shortens the story more dramatically (Matthew 8:28-34) and writes not of one possessed man, but of two.[4] The location is also changed, from the territory of the Gerasenes to that of the Gadarenes (Gadara). In this version,�

Matthew came up with a more credible location (the swine don’t have to run 35 miles) but increases the number of demoniac from one to two. Both accounts are supposed to have been witnessed by Apostles, but obvious both can’t be correct.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_ ... e_demoniac

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: A Jewish-Christian history written forty years after the events by a non-witness relying on legends and stories

Presuppositional. Why should we assume they were legends and stories?

Mark was a Syrian Christian.

Conjecture.

He does not report an Ascension and a "longer version" had to be added to his gospel in the second century so his gospel matched the other three.

Irrelevant.

Matthew corrects some of his errors.

Differences among texts do not a priori amount to conscious revision; nor do they mean that the contents of both should be dismissed wholesale.

Matthew came up with a more credible location (the swine don’t have to run 35 miles) but increases the number of demoniac from one to two. Both accounts are supposed to have been witnessed by Apostles, but obvious both can’t be correct.

IF I heard two stories about a robbery three blocks from me, one which had three robbers and the other had two, is the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this that no robbery took place?

[oldbadger]

RESPONSE:

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.

Yep...

Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy.

This clearly shows that the writer believed that there was a foundation of TRUTH embellished with fabrication, exaggeration, hyperbole and some very bare-faced fibs.

That's my interest....... to strip away the embellishment in order to find out as much as possible about this man and his friends. IMO that is extremely hard, but my hobby is (and my work was) investigation, so that's how I fit in to this assembly of folks.

Yes. The primary history about Jesus was written by a Syrian Christian who never knew Jesus in the flesh and based on hearsay written 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark's story formed the source for Matthew and Luke's stories.

Galileans used oral-tradition to carry memories forward because most did not write. These techniques could quite accurate, and over a decade or two they were not unreliable.
I don't know where Mark came from, but I do think that he knew Cephas at some time, and wrote (mostly) about his memories. The difference for me is that I now have a deep conviction that Jesus was just an amazing man ..... no more.

Under the circumstances, would you consider Mark's writings to be a credible source of history? What about the Matthew and Mark also non-witnesses who copied from Mark?

Like much of history and archeology we only can obtain an outline about the Jesus story. There's something there but it's not a highwayto heaven, it's just an ancient story that got patronised by some very clever very controlling folks.

I do understand why many people are so angry about it that they want to stamp the whole story into the ground, but I am interested about what happened. Why? I guess it's a great investigation, really......that's all.

I must post to you about Matthew and Levi..... those names......

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 15 by oldbadger]

I am terribly interested in how you synthesize the following comments:

That's my interest....... to strip away the embellishment in order to find out as much as possible about this man and his friends.

Galileans used oral-tradition to carry memories forward because most did not write. These techniques could quite accurate, and over a decade or two they were not unreliable.

I don't know where Mark came from, but I do think that he knew Cephas at some time, and wrote (mostly) about his memories. The difference for me is that I now have a deep conviction that Jesus was just an amazing man ..... no more.

In a few paragraphs you have just attributed to the gospel of Mark historical roots--a gospel that contains miracles, as well as the insinuation of a resurrection; yet you have concluded that Jesus was just a an amazing man.

I am absolutely (and sincerely) fascinated and eager to hear more.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 15 by oldbadger]

I am terribly interested in how you synthesize the following comments:

That's my interest....... to strip away the embellishment in order to find out as much as possible about this man and his friends.

Galileans used oral-tradition to carry memories forward because most did not write. These techniques could quite accurate, and over a decade or two they were not unreliable.

I don't know where Mark came from, but I do think that he knew Cephas at some time, and wrote (mostly) about his memories. The difference for me is that I now have a deep conviction that Jesus was just an amazing man ..... no more.

In a few paragraphs you have just attributed to the gospel of Mark historical roots--a gospel that contains miracles, as well as the insinuation of a resurrection; yet you have concluded that Jesus was just a an amazing man.

I am absolutely (and sincerely) fascinated and eager to hear more.

Hi..........
I don't see any resurrection in G-Mark.
I'm not even sure about which Yeshua was arrested/convicted....... there were originally two in G-Mark you know, but the first name of one somehow got removed.

I accept the foundational truth of many of the incidents which you call miracles, but which I think are exaggerated into 'huge hyperbole', but to keep things simple, could we focus on either resurrection or miracles? Would that be ok?

I like much of G-Mark, and with additional isolated pericopes in the other three gospels an outline can be seen, in my opinion.

[oldbadger]

Matthew and Levi are the same person. Matthew is the Greek name and Levi was the Hebrew name. .....................................

Hi...........

Look, this is a very long shot, but don't laugh too much or you'll get indigestion.....
Matthew: My studies show that Matthew was originally an Hebrew name, in the OT it was Mattithiah, but by early 1st century had formed into either Matthias or Mattityahu. (Gift of Yahweh).

Levi:- .... never did have a Greek variant, but of course you know that there was an Israel tribe 'Levite' the priestley and high class tribe, and most probably refers to the status of a person... All priests were Levites, buty not all Levites were priests, these had junior positions of authority.

Publican:- A position in the Roman system of tax collection, that of 'sub-tax-collector'. But in Galilee there may have been a Roman-standard system but run by Jews under the authority of Herod Antipas. There was probably a head tax official for Genesaret (Tiberius?) and sub-tax officers at all fishing havens. Since boats were licensed, fish catches taxed at un-loading, sale and transport, there may have been operatives working under publicans or publicans working under more senior tax officers.
Publicans would not have been recruited from the districts that they worked.
Publicans would have been recruited from a junior section of the senior Levite class.
Ergo, Genesaret publicans may have been Judeans, and low-order Levites.

I don't know how Matthew could add info to Mark's account, but it might just be that Jesus saw Matthew the Levite, a publican, sitting at table......... I can't figure it out any other way.......

[polonius]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/matthew

Given Name MATTHEW

GENDER: Masculine
USAGE: English, Biblical
Meaning & History
English form of Ματθαιος (Matthaios), which was a Greek form of the Hebrew name מַתִּתְיָהוּ (Mattityahu) meaning "gift of YAHWEH". Matthew, also called Levi, was one of the twelve apostles. He was a tax collector, and supposedly the author of the first gospel in the New Testament. He is considered a saint in many Christian traditions. The variant Matthias also occurs in the New Testament belonging to a separate apostle. The name appears in the Old Testament as Mattithiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi

Given name LEVI:

Levi (or Levy) (/ˈli�vaɪ/, Hebrew: לֵּוִי‎‎; Standard Levi Tiberian Lēwî) was, according to the Book of Genesis, the third son of Jacob and Leah, and the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Levi (the Levites). Certain religious and political functions were reserved for the Levites.

oldbadger also posted

I don't know how Matthew could add info to Mark's account, but it might just be that Jesus saw Matthew the Levite, a publican, sitting at table......... I can't figure it out any other way.......

Mark 27-30 (NRSV) 27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’28And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.’ 29He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’* 30And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Matthew (or some later copyist) added and changed:

Matthew 16:13-20 (NRSV) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?� 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.� 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?� 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.� 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.� 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[f] the Messiah.

Note: The word “Church� did not yet exist for a number of centuries. It was added later perhaps for doctrinal reasons.

The word in the original scripture was “ekklhsian ekklEsian G1577 n_ Acc Sg f OUT-CALLED “ecclesia�

But the addition provided a biblical basis for the Catholic Church!

[oldbadger]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/matthew

Given Name MATTHEW

GENDER: Masculine
USAGE: English, Biblical
Meaning & History
English form of Ματθαιος (Matthaios), which was a Greek form of the Hebrew name מַתִּתְיָהוּ (Mattityahu) meaning "gift of YAHWEH". Matthew, also called Levi, was one of the twelve apostles. He was a tax collector, and supposedly the author of the first gospel in the New Testament. He is considered a saint in many Christian traditions. The variant Matthias also occurs in the New Testament belonging to a separate apostle. The name appears in the Old Testament as Mattithiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi

Given name LEVI:

Levi (or Levy) (/ˈli�vaɪ/, Hebrew: לֵּוִי‎‎; Standard Levi Tiberian Lēwî) was, according to the Book of Genesis, the third son of Jacob and Leah, and the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Levi (the Levites). Certain religious and political functions were reserved for the Levites.

oldbadger also posted

I don't know how Matthew could add info to Mark's account, but it might just be that Jesus saw Matthew the Levite, a publican, sitting at table......... I can't figure it out any other way.......

Mark 27-30 (NRSV) 27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’28And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.’ 29He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’* 30And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Matthew (or some later copyist) added and changed:

Matthew 16:13-20 (NRSV) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?� 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.� 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?� 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.� 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.� 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[f] the Messiah.

Note: The word “Church� did not yet exist for a number of centuries. It was added later perhaps for doctrinal reasons.

The word in the original scripture was “ekklhsian ekklEsian G1577 n_ Acc Sg f OUT-CALLED “ecclesia�

But the addition provided a biblical basis for the Catholic Church!

Hi.......
I wasn't quoting those passages Polonius, I was referring to Jesus meeting Matthew for the first time...... here:-

Mark {2:14} And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of
Alphaeus

Matthew {9:9} And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a
man, named Matthew,

Luke {5:27} And after these things he went forth, and saw a
publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom:

...and my studies provide for the possibility that Matthew was the man's name, Levite was his social order, sub-taxman was his position, Judean was his background. My workings were shown in my previous post.