By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 11 April 2013
Edit Thread
Mazty said:
Slimebeast said:
Mazty said:

Dear oh dear oh dear....

First of all the Bible wasn't "written" 300+ years after the events as the Bible is a collection of books rather than a book itself. The Bible however was composed, as in all the books, were put together 300+ years later meaning that various accounts in various forms had been floating around. When we mix that fact in with the fact that a lot of the books were not written by eye witnesses, go figure how valid the accounts in it are. 

This thread is just fucking rediculous. It's amazing the level of ignorance surrounding the creation of the Bible - are you religious by any chance? Because very few people seem educated in anyway as to the origins of the New Testament. 

Yes, the definitive compilation of the Christian books (= The Bible) was complete in the 4th century. Everybody knows that. But what implication does that have on the authenticity of the original accounts if the compiled books themselves had been unchanged since their writing in the first century?

Yes, I'm religious. But you seem to be the one who is uneducated on the origins of the NT (or misunderstood it gravely).


The original accounts weren't by eye witnesses. Therefore how reliable a source is it? The answer obviously is "not very". When you tie in the fact that Luke used Mark as a source, same goes for Matthew, then it gets complex as we realise that Mark is probably the most accurate source. However, there are possibilites that Mark tied in Homer's Odyssey to what was written, as well as stories that had been passed down orally. 

If we were to approach that source as rational human beings with knowledge of the scientific method, it's validity is sketchy at best. So to then attribute Jesus as the most influential human being in history is rediculous as we don't actually know with any conviction what Jesus said. 

No dude, you clearly are letting religion dictate it's origins rather than history, and are not approaching this rationally. 

Now I think you're actually reasonable (except for the last sentence which is a little presumptuous).

I just have to protest a little that you're moving the goal-posts from making a big issue about the "Bible compiled 300 years after" and Constantine's involvement. With that out of the way I have no problem discussing the topic you present here - how to interpret the Gospel authors in the context that they're not first-hand accounts.

The approach to this topic is complex though (no matter if you're a historian or a Christian). You have to keep in mind things like:

* the context after the death of Jesus, the situation of the early Church in the decades after the death of Jesus. What if they were busy surviving and spreading the word rather than writing an official account of the life of Jesus? Most likely they had memory notes here and there but apparently not a universal document.

* analyze the text - are there internal evidence (dates, places, Herod, Augustus, Pilate)? What's the style? Does it seem to be written by someone with an agenda? Is it down to earth and not afraid of specific details or hyperbole and allegorical?

Just an example: if Jesus was more or less a myth (and Paul this myth's main architect), why are the Gospel writers accurate and in agreement on all the theological themes but often contradict each other on lesser things that a typical eye-witness several years after the events would be unsure about (such as: did Jesus hold 'the sermon on the mount' on a mountain or on the road near a mountain? who saw the resurrected Jesus first, Peter or the women?)?

In the 30 years between Jesus death and the writing of the Gospels there undoubtedly was room for some errors and contradictions to creep in, but the essential themes seem to be very well preserved and trustworthy.

I am not an expert on the historical reliability of the gospels and I'm not good at presenting it but whenever I study the topic I discover an ocean of evidence and methods to approach it.

Btw, I've never heard of the Mark vs Homer relationship, but I can say that in general when I've studied the claims that Christianity is largely derived from Greek philosophy I haven't found any convincing arguments for it.