Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Accuracy of the Gospel Accounts.


Recommended Posts

I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans on youtube. Also one with Dr James White.  They were discussing the integrity of the gospel accounts. One issue which they mention are the resurrection accounts where Matthew's account is decidedly different to those in the other three gospels. C S Lewis as a Christian apologist has argued that the accounts  though they might contain errors are pretty close to the facts"  In the Inspired Version instead of one angel sitting on the rock after it is rolled away there are TWO angels. In Mark's gospel they arrive and the stone is already rolled away with TWO angels sitting on the rock Nothing about going inside and encountering a "young man". In Luke's account (24)  the two men are inside  whereas in the IV they are perhaps outside? Another interesting issue is the interaction between Jesus and the two thieves. In the KJV  Matt 27 " The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth"  In the IV  Smith adds details found in Luke 23:39-43.Nothing in Mark 15 (KJV) but IV  adds "And one of them who was crucified with him reviled him also saying If thou art the Christ save thyself and us" There is nothing in John's gospel about the thieves talking to Jesus and nothing in the IV. I can understand how Ehrman after so much intense study with Bruce Metzger  arrive at more skeptical beliefs about the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

;;

Link to comment

Try reading eyewitness reports to an event not far off in time.  Different people see different things at the same time.  If you have any friends or relations that know a police person they can tell you a lot about this issue.                                                          Had a great thought after writing the above. If all the accounts matched up then people would say they were copied from one another!

Edited by Metis_LDS
addition
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Try reading eyewitness reports to an event not far off in time.  Different people see different things at the same time.  If you have any friends or relations that know a police person they can tell you a lot about this issue.                                                          Had a great thought after writing the above. If all the accounts matched up then people would say they were copied from one another!

If you have siblings think back to something that happened to all of you in your childhood.

The stories will be very different.

Add to that two thousand years and no eyewitness accounts, all 100 % hearsay, copied from one manuscript to another for hundreds of years like the game of "Telephone "

Frankly I cannot even imagine how they possibly could be "accurate" which alone makes that an irrelevant way to see them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

Try reading eyewitness reports to an event not far off in time.  Different people see different things at the same time.  If you have any friends or relations that know a police person they can tell you a lot about this issue.                                                          Had a great thought after writing the above. If all the accounts matched up then people would say they were copied from one another!

I agree, I see that the differences make the accounts more authentic and are exactly what you would expect to find from separate witnesses.  I think the differences are immaterial or can easily be explained as simply an inclusion or omission of details that may really not be contradictory.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest that such controversy is irrelevant to the spiritual meaning of the Gospel.

Since it is virtually impossible to discuss the historicity of verbal remarks made two thousand years ago,  I would suggest that it is best simply to look up on the gospel as spiritual stories for our spiritual growth.

I'm not suggesting they did not happen.

I'm merely suggesting that because we cannot prove them as happining we might as well take them simply a spiritual stories, and get from them such meaning as we can.

We already do that with The Parables Christ taught, anyway.  As far as what "he actually said" it is not as if someone was following him around with a video camera. It is totally reasonable to suppose that these were historical events but unfortunately they cannot be demonstrated scientifically to be so

Historical accuracy is of no importance whatsoever in learning the spiritual truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Those truths stand on their own merits and can be demonstrated to be very effective in one's life, in producing peace and spiritual equilibrium, which is exactly the function of religion anyway.

They show us our purpose in the universe  and the universe's purpose within us.

Ask a scientist what the purposes of existence is, and you will get blank stares.

His prior assumption is that there is no purpose, and he makes that assumption without evidence, which contradicts the entire nature of science itself.

Believers start out with the Assumption that there is a purpose and go on from there.

Neither point of view has evidence to back it up, both are merely different perspectives on the nature of the great Ontological question of why is there something rather than nothing.

 

As usual, great thoughts, mfbukowski.

The idea that religion needs to be proven misses the entire point. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I can understand how Ehrman after so much intense study with Bruce Metzger  arrive at more skeptical beliefs about the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

This is really a huge non-issue to Latter-day Saints since we do not believe that Bible manuscripts are "inerrant".  The differences between Bible manuscripts don't discount that the events that they are based upon actually happened or not.  And we don't depend on the existence of any one book of scripture alone (or any at all) for the foundation of our faith.  We could get along just fine without any historical scripture as long as there is a living prophet and apostles and revelation from God to his leaders.  But I like the scriptures and I'm very glad we have them.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans on youtube. Also one with Dr James White.  They were discussing the integrity of the gospel accounts. One issue which they mention are the resurrection accounts where Matthew's account is decidedly different to those in the other three gospels. C S Lewis as a Christian apologist has argued that the accounts  though they might contain errors are pretty close to the facts"  In the Inspired Version instead of one angel sitting on the rock after it is rolled away there are TWO angels. In Mark's gospel they arrive and the stone is already rolled away with TWO angels sitting on the rock Nothing about going inside and encountering a "young man". In Luke's account (24)  the two men are inside  whereas in the IV they are perhaps outside? Another interesting issue is the interaction between Jesus and the two thieves. In the KJV  Matt 27 " The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth"  In the IV  Smith adds details found in Luke 23:39-43.Nothing in Mark 15 (KJV) but IV  adds "And one of them who was crucified with him reviled him also saying If thou art the Christ save thyself and us" There is nothing in John's gospel about the thieves talking to Jesus and nothing in the IV. I can understand how Ehrman after so much intense study with Bruce Metzger  arrive at more skeptical beliefs about the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

;;

I took a course on this at BYU.  We must always remember that the Gospels were written from different points of view and to differing audiences.  Hence the seeming contradictions.  This is really not much worth worrying about.

 

Kind of like the current controversy and remembrances of Trump's July 25 phone call to Ukraine.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

"I felt like a thousand lions. I took the books and laid them down one by one beginning with the Bible, and said, "there lies the Bible, there the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations God has given through Joseph for the salvation of the people in the 19th Century, yet I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man, that lives without the living oracles of God."         Brigham Young

Brigham was quite the iconoclast, wasn't he?

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

"I felt like a thousand lions. I took the books and laid them down one by one beginning with the Bible, and said, "there lies the Bible, there the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations God has given through Joseph for the salvation of the people in the 19th Century, yet I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man, that lives without the living oracles of God."         Brigham Young

Thanks for that, I was trying to remember the wording of that quote to include with my post, but I was drawing a blank.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans on youtube. Also one with Dr James White.  They were discussing the integrity of the gospel accounts. One issue which they mention are the resurrection accounts where Matthew's account is decidedly different to those in the other three gospels. C S Lewis as a Christian apologist has argued that the accounts  though they might contain errors are pretty close to the facts"  In the Inspired Version instead of one angel sitting on the rock after it is rolled away there are TWO angels. In Mark's gospel they arrive and the stone is already rolled away with TWO angels sitting on the rock Nothing about going inside and encountering a "young man". In Luke's account (24)  the two men are inside  whereas in the IV they are perhaps outside? Another interesting issue is the interaction between Jesus and the two thieves. In the KJV  Matt 27 " The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth"  In the IV  Smith adds details found in Luke 23:39-43.Nothing in Mark 15 (KJV) but IV  adds "And one of them who was crucified with him reviled him also saying If thou art the Christ save thyself and us" There is nothing in John's gospel about the thieves talking to Jesus and nothing in the IV. I can understand how Ehrman after so much intense study with Bruce Metzger  arrive at more skeptical beliefs about the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

There are a lot more differences than these. Regardless, the testimony and tradition and their rendering into these texts over the centuries were sufficient to play a significant role in the Reformation and the Restoration. The preservation and consistency of the central message in as good a form as it was (and is) is impressive.

I would say that differences do not establish the inaccuracy of one or any account, but more so the absence of detail, emphasis and context that might otherwise reconcile them. Ans the lack of a standard of accuracy with which to compare them.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Who was listening to the exchange between Jesus and the "bandits"?

Didn't you know there was a guy with a steno pad taking shorthand the whole time? 

The only problem was the wax kept melting...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_tablet

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Didn't you know there was a guy with a steno pad taking shorthand the whole time? 

The only problem was the wax kept melting...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_tablet

That's the very first Etch-A-Sketch.  Write something down or draw a picture, and then just heat it up a bit, and you can use it again and again.  They should have gotten a patent on that while they had a chance.  (But it's way past the patent expiration time, so never mind.)

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That's the very first Etch-A-Sketch.  Write something down or draw a picture, and then just heat it up a bit, and you can use it again and again.  They should have gotten a patent on that while they had a chance.  (But it's way past the patent expiration time, so never mind.)

 

It's funny that I was thinking of that myself!

Well I guess it beat a parchment and a quill pen and a bottle of ink .  I am sure there is someone here who is an authority on all this.

But I come from the era of the Magic Slate - before there was even an Etch-A-Sketch.  It consisted of a sheet of translucent  material that you forced into some black wax with a stylus, leaving a black mark on the material beneath as long as it was stuck to the material.   To erase it all you had to do is lift the sheet and "unstick" it and the markings would disappear.

But I am sure you know that too!

Link to comment
8 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans on youtube. Also one with Dr James White.  They were discussing the integrity of the gospel accounts. One issue which they mention are the resurrection accounts where Matthew's account is decidedly different to those in the other three gospels. C S Lewis as a Christian apologist has argued that the accounts  though they might contain errors are pretty close to the facts"  In the Inspired Version instead of one angel sitting on the rock after it is rolled away there are TWO angels. In Mark's gospel they arrive and the stone is already rolled away with TWO angels sitting on the rock Nothing about going inside and encountering a "young man". In Luke's account (24)  the two men are inside  whereas in the IV they are perhaps outside? Another interesting issue is the interaction between Jesus and the two thieves. In the KJV  Matt 27 " The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth"  In the IV  Smith adds details found in Luke 23:39-43.Nothing in Mark 15 (KJV) but IV  adds "And one of them who was crucified with him reviled him also saying If thou art the Christ save thyself and us" There is nothing in John's gospel about the thieves talking to Jesus and nothing in the IV. I can understand how Ehrman after so much intense study with Bruce Metzger  arrive at more skeptical beliefs about the accuracy of the Bible accounts.;;

The evangelicals have boxed themselves in due to their silly belief in inerrant and infallible Scripture.  Everyone misses the main question, which is whether Jesus was resurrected, which is solely a matter of faith.

Of course the four Gospels differ in many details, and so do the differing accounts of Paul's First Vision in Acts.  So do the views by different students of Socrates (Plato and Xenophon see him differently).  What else is new?  Historians are well aware of differences in whatever biography about any one person.  Such is entirely normal.

The other issue is about the Inspired Version or JST.  It is not canonical Scripture, and it may be regarded as no different than any other Bible revision made by well-meaning people in that era.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...