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

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?

* 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 well very 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.

I'll clarify now as a lot of people seem to be mistaken on what I am saying:


A guy called Jesus most likely existed. However, we don't accurately know what he actually said, and therefore to attribute someone who we don't really know what they said as being the most influential human being is absurd. 

Well as for the Gosepl writers it looks like Matthew & Luke both used Mark as a source, ergo they are going to agree to a large degree with him...The Gospels weren't written 30 years after his death, but about 40, and that was just Mark. 

Mark: ~AD 70
Matthew & Luke : ~ AD 75-100

To give it some pespective, imagine asking someone in 1985 about WWII, who was most likely a relative of someone involved in it, prior to photos, large postal systems etc...

It really is a throughly interesting topic and I'm not trying to dismiss the Bible, but just acknowledge what is, or more preceisly is not, known about it. Many Greek stories share similarities with Biblical stories:

Homeric tradition. Some stories, such as that of "Legion" in Mark 5:9 [20] (paralleling Polyphemus [21]) and that of the woman with an alabaster box of ointment in Mark 14:3-9 [22] (paralleling Eurycleia [23]), may be based on Homer’s Odyssey according to Dennis R. MacDonald and Richard Carrier. [24]

Same goes for the Garden of Eden and Prometheus.