Gospel accounts reliability

[Halbhh]

This post/thread is about 1 narrow question that will be of use to some people.

Suppose a person is a non believer. And they are also someone that feels a need to question everything.

(I really get this temperament -- someone can tell me their car is maroon colored, and if I have the chance at all, I will glance at it (even if someone is talking to me!) to see if it really is 'maroon'....
What kind of maroon? Is it really maroon, or something not quite maroon? (lol, ok that sounds silly (though true); sometimes it's more useful than that, lol)
Yeah....
If I do or have done such to you, please don't take it personally.)

This post/thread is about 1 narrow question:

How can someone who doesn't already believe or hasn't yet tested Christ's words...try to have a preliminary estimation on whether the accounts written down in the gospels are likely to be generally accurate (accurate in all significant ways that have real consequence)?

Instead of you just reeling off your set answer, tho, I'd like to show you something really quite amazing, and not so well known, below.

First a very brief general information (the amazing thing is later): a mainstream consensus view is that the Gospel of Mark was written down in the range of 66-70 AD:
"Mark probably dates from AD 66–70." Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

Which puts that about 35 years or so after Christ's crucifixion.

That's already interesting, in that any number under 55 years or so already has a mathematical, statistical implication -- some of the thousands that heard Christ preach as youths (e.g. age 15-22) would be still alive 35 years later (or 40, etc.) (some having passed away, some still living).

As they told others their memories, many listeners would have learned what all the various verbal accounts agreed on -- the widely agreed details from among the dozens or even hundreds of direct witnesses.

But though quite significant, that's not the most interesting thing of all yet to me personally tho. This below is, to me personally.

The first way I learned about this thing below was just as a clue.

A long time college English professor was relating that there were a portion of students that seemed to just remember things in a way that far surpassed other students -- while other students remembered 50% or 60% of stuff right, these individuals would get 100% right.... (at first one might imagine they are only-good-at-one-thing savants, but...that's not what turns out; see below!)

She'd observed this odd fact over time, that in classes she'd notice students that just seemed to have this perfect memory, year after year, individual students.

I got curious. (just pure curiosity; I've long read in various sciences, including psychological research)

Searching later to learn more on it, I found this convenient (not long) video from the long running CBS program 60 Minutes that helps show the phenomena via an top academic researcher investigating it, and one can look up the research also --

(you get to see the researcher and some of his testing in this video also)

 

[Halbhh]

-- the extra short version of post #1 here was confusing, so I removed it --

 

[com7fy8]

It seems you are assuming the writings depend on human ability to remember things.

The Holy Spirit is able to have us remember things, and inspire what we write.

But there are people who claim that writers compared their info with one another, before finishing what they wrote.

I can see it is possible that there could be both > remembrance in the Holy Spirit but also comparing for confirmation.

 

[Halbhh]

It seems you are assuming the writings depend on human ability to remember things.

Maybe I should not have written post number 2 at all, if it allows that impression!

I'll remove post 2.

Then, if you look at 2 to 5 paragraphs post #1, that should help!
(this is the 'apologetics' area open to non-believers that are unusually questioning, and the post is for non-believers, not addressed to believers that have learned a lot more and also have faith, both, like you!)

 

[Halbhh]

But there are people who claim that writers compared their info with one another, before finishing what they wrote.

Having said the first true thing, by the way, on this 2nd part, you should learn what Luke wrote in his first few sentences. Would 'investigated' mean....well, it would mean what it says very likely, just as we'd think: Luke would have asked people questions and listened, since he is investigating what he himself wasn't there to see.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[BigV]

That's already interesting, in that any number under 55 years or so already has a mathematical, statistical implication -- some of the thousands that heard Christ preach as youths (e.g. age 15-22) would be still alive 35 years later (or 40, etc.) (some having passed away, some still living).

When was the book of Mormon written? Would the writing written in the lifetime of Joseph Smith be evidence that the book of Mormon is true? If not, then why does it matter when the Gospels were written in terms of their reliability?

 

[Halbhh]

When was the book of Mormon written? Would the writing written in the lifetime of Joseph Smith be evidence that the book of Mormon is true? If not, then why does it matter when the Gospels were written in terms of their reliability?

That's a good summary of why I test things. I try to falsify what I think might be worth my time -- things that at least already met the standard being considered wisdom for the ages, lasting more than just 200 or 500 years, and showing they can work in very diverse cultures (not just certain kinds of rigid attitudes, but high diversity I decided was another good indication).

Things that have proven they are valued in cultures throughout great spans of time -- those are worth learning and....

....testing.

Of course, the single most lauded of all is the Christ, and so, I therefore began to test things He said.

Along with many other of the great thinkers, lauded so much, like Lao Tzu, Emerson, Jung, and many others.

Anyone could, though it took an attitude of expecting to learn (one would have to think they don't already know all that matters about how to live, and be seeking to learn).

 

[BigV]

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This is good information. Now, lets compare Joseph's genealogies in Luke's Gospel and Matthew's Gospel. Now, which of them is correct?

Secondly, Luke doesn't tell us how he gets his information. What are his sources? If we compare Luke's Gospel with Mark's Gospel, we'll find he is copying most of it verbatim. He certainly follows the outline of Mark. If that's an independent research by Luke, then I'm not impressed.

Here is the Evangelical Source on discussing the "Synoptic Problem"

The Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained. Today, most people accept either the Two Document or Four Source Hypotheses as being most reasonable, probably with the majority leaning to the Four Source Hypotheses. Today most allow a role for some form of a Q document, although there remains little agreement on the details of how it was used or what it contained.

 

[Halbhh]

Now, which of them is correct?

For me, that's so simple -- I don't even care. I test.

I didn't get to testing the 2nd or 4th level down from the leading thinkers. I stuck in the very top level, those renowned through the ages (more than 500 years), and appealing to very diverse peoples from around the world.

Why bother with 3rd rung down, when the 1rst rung has a lot to learn from -- a couple dozen or more of the greatest thinkers?

(it's true one could arise recently, but start with the well established, I decided. this was all merely logical)

Raise your standards I'd suggest.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Having said the first true thing, by the way, on this 2nd part, you should learn what Luke wrote in his first few sentences. Would 'investigated' mean....well, it would mean what it says very likely, just as we'd think: Luke would have asked people questions and listened, since he is investigating what he himself wasn't there to see.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

btw, fyi, fwiw, this looks like a more accurate way >>>
Luke 1:3
KJ21
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Along with many other of the great thinkers, lauded so much, like Lao Tzu, Emerson, Jung, and many others.

"along with" !?
I don't think so.
What men highly esteem, Yahweh calls abomination.


p.s. (perhaps) Raise your standards I'd suggest.

 

[BigV]

I didn't get to testing the 2nd or 4th level down from the leading thinkers. I stuck in the very top level, those renowned through the ages (more than 500 years), and appealing to very diverse peoples from around the world.

Sounds good. Sounds like the book of Mormon is as correct as your Gospels. Same goes for the Quran.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luke is an ancient history and isn't really exceptional. And as far as ancient history goes, it's a mixture of things that are credible, and things that are legends.

The fact there are two accounts of Judas's death that are at odds with each other in the details shows that there are legendary accounts at work in the text. The author of Luke obviously used a variety of sources and redacted them into one narrative.

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems you are assuming the writings depend on human ability to remember things.

The Holy Spirit is able to have us remember things, and inspire what we write.

Occam's Razor suggests it's unwise to believe the Holy Spirit is the reason for the same content being found in the Synoptic tradition.

 

[Halbhh]

btw, fyi, fwiw, this looks like a more accurate way >>>
Luke 1:3
KJ21
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

English Standard Version
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Berean Study Bible
Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Berean Literal Bible
it seemed good also to me, having been acquainted with all things carefully from the first, to write with method to you, most excellent Theophilus,

New American Standard Bible
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;

Holman Christian Standard Bible
It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus,

International Standard Version
I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

American Standard Version
it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;

Douay-Rheims Bible
It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Young's Literal Translation
it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus,

And more, with the Greek, etc. Here:
Luke 1:3 Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

i.e. God is Right, His Word is True, Inspired Fully by Him, not relying nor resting on man/men/scholars at all. He is the Source, the Truth, the Breathing of His Word Accompished and Revealed His Way.

 

[Halbhh]

Sounds good. Sounds like the book of Mormon is as correct as your Gospels. Same goes for the Quran.

You may want to check on a few things there.

How old is the book of Mormon? Does Islam basically use a lot from the bible, giving it something?

 

[Halbhh]

i.e. God is Right, His Word is True, Inspired Fully by Him, not relying nor resting on man/men/scholars at all. He is the Source, the Truth, the Breathing of His Word Accompished and Revealed His Way.

Right. Did you read the first post? If not you'd be tilting at windmills.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Right. Did you read the first post?

< shrugs > I don't remember.

 

[BigV]

How old is the book of Mormon? Does Islam basically use a lot from the bible, giving it something?

Who cares? I'm just testing them like you are testing the Bible/Gospels. All good.