Are the Gospels historical or allegorical?

[polonius]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

2. It is claimed that two of the writers were actual witnesses to the events. That view has largely been abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion.

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

It's recognized that Mark was a Syrian convert and Luke was also a Syrian Christian
They were not apostles.

The Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible points out the obvious.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories"

Moreover, the writer never identifies himself and there is no dialogue between the author, and Jesus or any other Apostles.

The author of the Gospel we attribute to John never identifies himself either as John or an apostle, and, of course, would have been around 90 years of age or older then John was written.

Among its most significant contradictions, the gospel of John has Jesus crucified a day earlier than the other three Gospels and has no institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

[Divine Insight]

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

Not only this, but nowhere in the Gospels is it mentioned that Jesus told anyone to write anything down for future generations.

In fact, Mark, Matthew, and Luke report Jesus saying the following:

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

There are also other places where the authors of the Gospels actually have Jesus telling specific people that they will not die before the Son of Man returns.

So the very idea that anything would need to be written for future generations makes no sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?


JW

[Tcg]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?

We can identify present day historians. Can you identify the gospel writers?

[JehovahsWitness]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?

Are you suggesting that a historian doesn't have to be a personal eyewitness or have first hand experience of an event to present a reliable historical document? That a historian doesnt have to have met Hitler to write a reliabe account about him?

That historical records can indeed be written 70 years after the events?

JW

[polonius]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?


JW

RESPONSE: Not with first hand knowledge unless he was there.

The gospel writers were not eye-witnesses and wrote 40-60 years after the miracles which they were describing was supposed to have happened.

And they wrote first person accounts of what was supposedly said. That's even harder to do if the authors were not even there.

Do you understand the historical limitation?

Try an experiment. Find several Korean war veteran buddies and have each of them write out the dialogues they heard the first day they were there.

You might profit from a course in historicity!

[Tcg]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?

Are you suggesting that a historian doesn't have to be a personal eyewitness or have first hand experience of an event to present a reliable historical document? That a historian doesnt have to have met Hitler to write a reliabe account about him?

I asked quite specifically:

"What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?"

That historical records can indeed be written 70 years after the events?

Where in two questions you quoted from my reply did you craft this conclusion from?

[polonius]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Why is this relevant? Does this mean no present day historian can write about the Second World War?

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?

Are you suggesting that a historian doesn't have to be a personal eyewitness or have first hand experience of an event to present a reliable historical document? That a historian doesnt have to have met Hitler to write a reliabe account about him?

I asked quite specifically:

"What source data did the authors of the gospels have access to?"

That historical records can indeed be written 70 years after the events?

Where in two questions you quoted from my reply did you craft this conclusion from?

RESPONSE:

Mark written about 70 AD Just legends

Matthew and Luke written 80 AD, Mark (90% of Matthew), Q source(?) M source, L source

John written about 95 AD all of the above, but he seems to have used little of it. He tells little of history, reports the death of Christ to have been a day earlier than the other gospels.

[JehovahsWitness]

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

Bold MINE


Why did you ask this?

Could it be because if it is deemed that the source data is reliable, event if the historian is writing 70 years after the events, we can accept the account as being historically accurate?

Even if the person writing was not himself an eye-witness of events?

Even if the central character never wrote anything himself?

Is that why you asked about source data?

JW

[polonius]

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

Bold MINE


Why did you ask this?

Could it be because if it is deemed that the source data is reliable, event if the historian is writing 70 years after the events, we can accept the account as being historically accurate?

Even if the person writing was not himself an eye-witness of events?

Even if the central character never wrote anything himself?

Is that why you asked about source data?

JW

RESPONSE: Actually, historically suspect especially if there are contrary editions, as in the case of the Gospels.